From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Mar 31 17:53:54 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:53:54 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: New Blogpost: Is There a Global Internet Community
In-Reply-To: <004301d06bfc$2ac81270$80583750$@gmail.com>
References: <004301d06bfc$2ac81270$80583750$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004c01d06bfd$2f7b44d0$8e71ce70$@gmail.com>

Some may find this of interest.

 

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/is-there-a-global-internet-communi
ty/

 

M

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150331/d3678d42/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Sun Mar  1 03:52:20 2015
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:52:20 +0300
Subject: [governance] Cigar Box Governance
In-Reply-To: <54F110AD.4050206@communisphere.com>
References: <54F110AD.4050206@communisphere.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwp+rQZYkOx5AjhhC8+=HftLO9ZWu=r-TH+=K2_nH-U02A@mail.gmail.com>

I like this approach...
"For community TLDs, the operational approach we've advocated, success
comprises a positive impact on the delivery of city services, economic
enhancement, and an improved quality of life. We took a first stroke at
identifying community metrics on our wiki
<http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/city-tld-metrics-checklist>
some
time ago. With community enhancements emerging from long term development
efforts, an assessment at this early stage is challenging. What we do here
is look at some early actions and how they might influence those long term
goals."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150301/cd47c4ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ymshana2003 at gmail.com  Sun Mar  1 04:11:41 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (Dr Yassin Mshana)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:11:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] Cigar Box Governance
In-Reply-To: <54F110AD.4050206@communisphere.com>
References: <54F110AD.4050206@communisphere.com>
Message-ID: <CAM2OVBoCyE5pbOncJRO9Xu5e6FiGFSq=2N9+EOJza1-fBKOTfg@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings...!

Thank you for this Health Check of the reality...it is True and very
concerning at Policy Level of the Internet business.

It will be shocking if the same scenario is repeated by other similar
TLDs...which is like painting a misleading picture?

Accountability and Transparency are crucial in this type of business..

Can we hear more from the analysis of other new TLDs please..?

It is easier to say the Truth than hidding it.

Kind regards
Yassin Mshana
On 28 Feb 2015 02:50, "Thomas Lowenhaupt" <toml at communisphere.com> wrote:

>  While most attention here is on global governance, I thought you might be
> interested in what it's sometimes like at the bottom. Here's a post we made
> today reviewing the first 6 months of the .nyc TLD's operation:
> http://connectingnyc.org. (I've copied it below for the convenience of
> some.)
>
> While I entitled it *Digital.nyc - A Status Report*, with the .nyc TLD's
> operation lacking transparency, accountability, or a governance process it
> might better be called Cigar Box Governance.
>
> Best,
>
> Tom Lowenhaupt
> Digital.nyc – A Status Report <http://www.connectingnyc.org/digital-nyc/>
>
> Posted by: Editor <http://www.connectingnyc.org/author/editor/>
>
> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/digital-nyc/half-candle/>Jackson Hts., New
> York, February 24, 2015 – We’re a 1/2 candle into the life of our city’s
> TLD and an appropriate time for an evaluation. But with .nyc’s success
> metrics undefined, an assessment is challenging. Hoping that we might
> contribute to a long term analytical framework, we decided to undertake
> this first review.
>
> Fundamentally, there are two competing perspectives on a TLD’s success,
> the standard and community. The metric used for assessing standard TLDs
> such as .com, .net, and .org is based on the number of names sold. We honor
> that tradition by presenting a statistical review.
>
> For community TLDs, the operational approach we’ve advocated, success
> comprises a positive impact on the delivery of city services, economic
> enhancement, and an improved quality of life. We took a first stroke at
> identifying community metrics on our wiki
> <http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/city-tld-metrics-checklist>
> some time ago. With community enhancements emerging from long term
> development efforts, an assessment at this early stage is challenging. What
> we do here is look at some early actions and how they might influence those
> long term goals.
> Traditional Metrics
>
> Let’s start with some stats on the number of .nyc domain names sold.
>
>    - As of February 22, the city’s contractor reported 72,103 names sold
>    with sales at a rate of about 90 registrations per day. (See more
>    current stats here <https://ntldstats.com/tld/nyc>.
>    <https://ntldstats.com/tld/nyc>)
>    - Of those, 74.27% or 52,672 were “parked.” A parked domain is one
>    purchased but without any meaningful content (see keys.nyc for an
>    example). Names purchased for speculative purposes might be parked. And
>    with .nyc being a new TLD, many are surely parked while under development.
>    - That 74% of parked domains has been inching down over the months.
>    For comparison .berlin has 73% parked, .london 36%, .paris 48%, and .tokyo
>    55%. (Might we induce a level of speculative purchases from these?)
>    - Doing some subtraction (72,103 – 52,672) one might conclude that
>    19,431 .nyc domain names are providing some level of content. But…
>    - A February 21 Google search using the “Site:.nyc” command revealed
>    only 458 websites. (Google reported a total of 940 finds, a number
>    consisting of both primary names and their duplicates.) We’re looking for
>    an explanation for this discrepancy.
>    - We looked at the first 100 of those 458 “Site:.nyc” sites and found
>    40% used the .nyc domain name to present content. The other 60% merely
>    linked to a .com or .org site.
>
> In addition to these 72,103 sold names, 21,000 names have been created but
> not allocated. The unallocated fall into three categories.
>
>    - 800 Reserved Names
>    <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZXMFe-C2PU6KIRPbZKfLkk63i2k5u7Uz2wDikqWPeZg/edit?usp=sharing>
>    – Names set aside to serve the public’s benefit. Three fourths of these
>    names are those of neighborhoods or Business Improvement Districts (BIDs),
>    e.g., see 125thstreet.nyc. Included also are some generic and category
>    names, e.g., taxi.nyc, tours.nyc, and digital.nyc, about which we have more
>    to say below.
>    - 3,092 Premium Names
>    <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qeEPuuPQ3MxzDtUjNpWZy5milRVISvt-4QqBmHRgENQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>    – These names were set aside for distribution through high-bid auctions,
>    scheduled to begin in early 2015. We’ve advocated for attaching Public
>    Interest Commitments (PICs) to many of these names, believing social and
>    economic equity and a stronger TLD will result. A recent  panel report
>    <http://www.connectingnyc.org/report-premium-nyc-domain-names-public-interest-commitments-12-18-2014/>
>    detailed these recommendations.
>    - 17,000 Collision Names
>    <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YYFOrvpZzwpb-gHHAzxBPhEa7etN6EiHomNASTSgH1A&authuser=0>
>    – The “Collision” names were excluded from allocation pending a review of
>    their impact on the operation of existing networks. Mayor.nyc and our own
>    connecting.nyc are two of the good names stuck in this batch. The vast
>    majority of collision names are of little consequence, but all are expected
>    to become available in mid 2015.
>
> While we have some statistics to guide our Traditional Metrics evaluation,
> doing so for the Community-TLD perspective is a bit more challenging.
> The Community View
>
> Early in 2014 Mayor de Blasio announced that it had reserved nearly 400
> neighborhood names for development by entities representing the public
> interest. And it created a path for their allocation – see
> neighborhoods.nyc <http://neighborhoods.nyc>. We tested the proposed
> allocation process recently by encouraging local civic entities to apply
> for the JacksonHeights.nyc name. We chose Jackson Heights because it
> represented the home team – we’re based there – and it has a young
> entrepreneurial population engaged with tech.
>
> The response was lukewarm at best. Only one organization indicated it
> might take on the site’s development. And that commitment was on an “as
> time allows” basis. Also, no existing organization matched the proposed
> governance standard.
>
> We concluded that if a suitable application was to be filed for
> JacksonHeights.nyc, it would best be submitted by a new entity, one having
> the website as its primary mission. And we concluded that the neighborhood
> names might best be issued to contracted parties, committed to the
> principals set out on neighborhoods.nyc, with periodic reviews to establish
> compliance. A scenario of this sort would require an investment for start
> up and oversight.
>
> The adoption of a resident-focused nexus policy was another positive
> action by de Blasio. Properly administered and enforced nexus can foster a
> range of benefits from civic pride to security and economic development.
> Our review of registrations revealed some questionable registrant addresses
> and we look forward to the initiation of planned random audits and for a
> public reporting of results.
>
> A  key sign of community success will arrive when .nyc names are being
> used to create new civic and business connections. Over the last several
> months we’ve sought to understand who is registering the domain names. Are
> names being registered to make new connections and new markets? Are New
> Yorkers shifting their registrations to .nyc from .com, .net, .org and
> other foreign TLDs? While we await a sophisticated analysis, an associate
> has reviewed the daily log of new registrants. The dominant impression is
> that registrations are largely for generic names, as opposed to those of
> existing businesses. Looked at in concert with the high rate of parked
> names, this might indicate a multitude of speculative purchases. But one
> might see a positive side to this: the names of existing businesses are
> apparently not being squatted upon and remain available.
> Community Opportunities
>
> One of the key benefits we foresaw for New Yorkers and visitors alike was
> an intuitive Internet where our everyday language would be our guide. Using
> the Commissioners’ Plan of 1811
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioners%27_Plan_of_1811> as
> inspiration, we advanced the model of viewing .nyc as a digital grid where
> ease-of-use and clarity would result from the thoughtful allocation of
> names – bikes.nyc, bakeries.nyc, drugstores.nyc, schools.nyc, etc. But the
> city opted for the speed and simplicity of a Land Rush
> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/the-nyc-landrush-auctions-adding-injury-to-insult/>
> distribution process (first-come first-served), which released thousands of
> intuitive names for unknown uses. The results are trickling in.
>
> Today, New Yorkers typing hardwarestores.nyc will be presented with the
> services offered by a single locksmith, not an organized presentation of
> the desired stores. They’ll need to sift through Google’s global results to
> locate their local hardware store. The local hardware store will need to
> pay Google if it hopes to be found there. And a job will not be created for
> the local operator of hardwarestores.nyc. It’s a loose-loose-loose
> situation for New York.
>
> But there’s still an opportunity to foster an intuitive .nyc, where
> language holds its traditional meaning. Within the 21,000 unallocated
> Reserved, Premium, and Collision names the city can identify widely
> understood names (words would be a better descriptive) and require Public
> Interest Commitments (see our recommendations
> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/report-premium-nyc-domain-names-public-interest-commitments-12-18-2014/>)
> by the developers of these domain names.
>
> If .nyc is to gain a reputation as a reliable and useful TLD – where
> people are confident that typing a domain name will deliver the desired
> result, names like pizza.nyc and hotels.nyc can’t simply market traditional
> brands. That is, pizza.nyc can’t lead to Pizza Hut and hotels.nyc can’t
> provide the choice of all the city’s Hilton Hotels. This will be the likely
> consequence if a high bid auction determiners development rights.
>
> For .nyc to succeed these domain names need to aide residents and visitors
> alike in learning about the history, variety, and depth of our pizza and
> hospitality industries. This can only be achieved via contractual Public
> Interest Commitments.
>
> Additionally, Mayor de Blasio can select a few of the unallocated names
> and provide those on the other side of the digital divide with the
> opportunity to apply their entrepreneurial talents to developing the .nyc
> TLD.
> Concerns
>
> Since 2009, when the city announced its intent to acquire .nyc, there have
> been few meaningful opportunities for public engagement in .nyc’s planning
> and oversight process. Access was virtually nonexistent during the
> Bloomberg years. Initially the de Blasio Administration was more receptive
> to public engagement, indeed, during 2014 a .NYC Community Advisory Board
> met on a monthly basis, with two from our organization appointed as
> members. However, when that Board ceased operating in December, public
> access to the oversight process ceased.
>
> The importance of governance and access was brought to mind recently when
> we received an invitation to attend a Digital.nyc Five Borough Tour
> <http://www.digital.nyc/events/digital-dot-nyc-five-borough-tour-number-bronx>.
> Curious about the event and its genesis we visited the digital.nyc website
> where the sponsors were described:
>
> Digital.NYC is the official online hub of the New York City startup and
> technology ecosystem, bringing together every company, startup, investor,
> event, job, class, blog, video, workspace, accelerator, incubator, resource
> and organization in the five boroughs. It is the result of a unique
> public/private partnership between the office of Mayor Bill de Blasio, the
> New York City Economic Development Corporation, IBM, Gust, and over a dozen
> leading NYC-based technology and media companies.
>
> Curious, we reviewed the Reserved Names and found digital.nyc listed. Not
> having been privy to this development while on the Advisory Board, we
> wondered about the process by which they had obtained the domain name. With
> this in mind we recalled a recent conversation predicting that fashion.nyc
> would be developed in a similar manner to digital.nyc. Some research
> revealed fashion.nyc to be on the Premium Names list and as having been
> registered to Neustar, the contractor overseeing .nyc’s marketing and
> operation, last week.
>
> Without transparency and a governance process, people may begin to think
> the city’s TLD is being operated out of cigar box, or worse. And with
> public trust central to its becoming a grid for our digital resources, such
> perceptions can be highly detrimental.
>
> City Hall needs to add transparency and accountability to the operation of
> the .nyc TLD. And it needs a representative and accessible governance
> process that informs the public about how allocation decisions are made,
> for what purpose, and by whom. And we need a process and timetable for
> evaluating these allocations of the public’s resources.
>
> Soap Box: Our view is that a thoughtfully developed TLD provides the
> infrastructure for a secure local Internet. That upon that base one can
> build privacy, identity, and community. And that these will speed economic
> growth and the creation of a more prosperous and livable city.
> A Hollywood Ending
>
> This review turned out to be far longer than we anticipated. Those who’ve
> stuck with it to the end get 7 .nyc treats. Enjoy.
>
>    - Archives.nyc <http://archives.nyc> – This site shows city
>    information presented in an esthetically pleasing manner. Congratulations
>    to the Municipal Archives.
>    - MurdersIn.nyc – If we were giving awards this one would get the
>    Bagel for creative use of a .nyc domain name.
>    - Greenestreet.nyc – A wonderful presentation of the 400 year history
>    of one small section of a city street. But we do have some qualms about
>    ownership of this resource as detailed here
>    <http://www.connectingnyc.org/of-master-plans-greenstreet-nyc/>.
>    - Straphangers.nyc – We love this organization and as one might expect
>    its an early occupant of the .nyc domain.
>    - Visualizing.nyc
>    <http://visualizing.nyc/bus-riding-the-best-kept-secret-of-nyc-transit/>
>    – Be patient while this one loads. For map lovers.
>    - Mammamia.nyc – Broadway’s first play to make it to the big time.
>    - Prty.nyc <http://prty.nyc/sperm-visualizer/> – Dancing like you’ve
>    never seen it before.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150301/46ec9f5e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 187x218xhalf-candle-258x300.png.pagespeed.ic.rDQZI_sVe9.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9275 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150301/46ec9f5e/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun Mar  1 05:18:12 2015
From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:18:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] Cigar Box Governance
In-Reply-To: <CAM2OVBoCyE5pbOncJRO9Xu5e6FiGFSq=2N9+EOJza1-fBKOTfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54F110AD.4050206@communisphere.com> <CAM2OVBoCyE5pbOncJRO9Xu5e6FiGFSq=2N9+EOJza1-fBKOTfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANMQhZi-ErsqPYYH+g=mFv-3TWNr3TWBzLipJXuqQ65AZ3Q2Gw@mail.gmail.com>

if you want information on ICANN Domain Name real-life I recommend this
French website
http://www.dnsnews.fr
you can translate text with Google Trad or other utility.
Best interesting is links (most in English),


Chantal Lebrument
​Courriel: c <lebrument at open-root.eu>hlebrum at gmail.com
Mob: +33 6 8369 5460

2015-03-01 10:11 GMT+01:00 Dr Yassin Mshana <ymshana2003 at gmail.com>:

> Greetings...!
>
> Thank you for this Health Check of the reality...it is True and very
> concerning at Policy Level of the Internet business.
>
> It will be shocking if the same scenario is repeated by other similar
> TLDs...which is like painting a misleading picture?
>
> Accountability and Transparency are crucial in this type of business..
>
> Can we hear more from the analysis of other new TLDs please..?
>
> It is easier to say the Truth than hidding it.
>
> Kind regards
> Yassin Mshana
> On 28 Feb 2015 02:50, "Thomas Lowenhaupt" <toml at communisphere.com> wrote:
>
>>  While most attention here is on global governance, I thought you might
>> be interested in what it's sometimes like at the bottom. Here's a post we
>> made today reviewing the first 6 months of the .nyc TLD's operation:
>> http://connectingnyc.org. (I've copied it below for the convenience of
>> some.)
>>
>> While I entitled it *Digital.nyc - A Status Report*, with the .nyc TLD's
>> operation lacking transparency, accountability, or a governance process it
>> might better be called Cigar Box Governance.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Tom Lowenhaupt
>> Digital.nyc – A Status Report <http://www.connectingnyc.org/digital-nyc/>
>>
>> Posted by: Editor <http://www.connectingnyc.org/author/editor/>
>>
>> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/digital-nyc/half-candle/>Jackson Hts., New
>> York, February 24, 2015 – We’re a 1/2 candle into the life of our city’s
>> TLD and an appropriate time for an evaluation. But with .nyc’s success
>> metrics undefined, an assessment is challenging. Hoping that we might
>> contribute to a long term analytical framework, we decided to undertake
>> this first review.
>>
>> Fundamentally, there are two competing perspectives on a TLD’s success,
>> the standard and community. The metric used for assessing standard TLDs
>> such as .com, .net, and .org is based on the number of names sold. We honor
>> that tradition by presenting a statistical review.
>>
>> For community TLDs, the operational approach we’ve advocated, success
>> comprises a positive impact on the delivery of city services, economic
>> enhancement, and an improved quality of life. We took a first stroke at
>> identifying community metrics on our wiki
>> <http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/city-tld-metrics-checklist>
>> some time ago. With community enhancements emerging from long term
>> development efforts, an assessment at this early stage is challenging. What
>> we do here is look at some early actions and how they might influence those
>> long term goals.
>> Traditional Metrics
>>
>> Let’s start with some stats on the number of .nyc domain names sold.
>>
>>    - As of February 22, the city’s contractor reported 72,103 names sold
>>    with sales at a rate of about 90 registrations per day. (See more
>>    current stats here <https://ntldstats.com/tld/nyc>.
>>    <https://ntldstats.com/tld/nyc>)
>>    - Of those, 74.27% or 52,672 were “parked.” A parked domain is one
>>    purchased but without any meaningful content (see keys.nyc for an
>>    example). Names purchased for speculative purposes might be parked. And
>>    with .nyc being a new TLD, many are surely parked while under development.
>>    - That 74% of parked domains has been inching down over the months.
>>    For comparison .berlin has 73% parked, .london 36%, .paris 48%, and .tokyo
>>    55%. (Might we induce a level of speculative purchases from these?)
>>    - Doing some subtraction (72,103 – 52,672) one might conclude that
>>    19,431 .nyc domain names are providing some level of content. But…
>>    - A February 21 Google search using the “Site:.nyc” command revealed
>>    only 458 websites. (Google reported a total of 940 finds, a number
>>    consisting of both primary names and their duplicates.) We’re looking for
>>    an explanation for this discrepancy.
>>    - We looked at the first 100 of those 458 “Site:.nyc” sites and found
>>    40% used the .nyc domain name to present content. The other 60% merely
>>    linked to a .com or .org site.
>>
>> In addition to these 72,103 sold names, 21,000 names have been created
>> but not allocated. The unallocated fall into three categories.
>>
>>    - 800 Reserved Names
>>    <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZXMFe-C2PU6KIRPbZKfLkk63i2k5u7Uz2wDikqWPeZg/edit?usp=sharing>
>>    – Names set aside to serve the public’s benefit. Three fourths of these
>>    names are those of neighborhoods or Business Improvement Districts (BIDs),
>>    e.g., see 125thstreet.nyc. Included also are some generic and
>>    category names, e.g., taxi.nyc, tours.nyc, and digital.nyc, about which we
>>    have more to say below.
>>    - 3,092 Premium Names
>>    <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qeEPuuPQ3MxzDtUjNpWZy5milRVISvt-4QqBmHRgENQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>    – These names were set aside for distribution through high-bid auctions,
>>    scheduled to begin in early 2015. We’ve advocated for attaching Public
>>    Interest Commitments (PICs) to many of these names, believing social and
>>    economic equity and a stronger TLD will result. A recent  panel report
>>    <http://www.connectingnyc.org/report-premium-nyc-domain-names-public-interest-commitments-12-18-2014/>
>>    detailed these recommendations.
>>    - 17,000 Collision Names
>>    <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YYFOrvpZzwpb-gHHAzxBPhEa7etN6EiHomNASTSgH1A&authuser=0>
>>    – The “Collision” names were excluded from allocation pending a review of
>>    their impact on the operation of existing networks. Mayor.nyc and our own
>>    connecting.nyc are two of the good names stuck in this batch. The vast
>>    majority of collision names are of little consequence, but all are expected
>>    to become available in mid 2015.
>>
>> While we have some statistics to guide our Traditional Metrics
>> evaluation, doing so for the Community-TLD perspective is a bit more
>> challenging.
>> The Community View
>>
>> Early in 2014 Mayor de Blasio announced that it had reserved nearly 400
>> neighborhood names for development by entities representing the public
>> interest. And it created a path for their allocation – see
>> neighborhoods.nyc <http://neighborhoods.nyc>. We tested the proposed
>> allocation process recently by encouraging local civic entities to apply
>> for the JacksonHeights.nyc name. We chose Jackson Heights because it
>> represented the home team – we’re based there – and it has a young
>> entrepreneurial population engaged with tech.
>>
>> The response was lukewarm at best. Only one organization indicated it
>> might take on the site’s development. And that commitment was on an “as
>> time allows” basis. Also, no existing organization matched the proposed
>> governance standard.
>>
>> We concluded that if a suitable application was to be filed for
>> JacksonHeights.nyc, it would best be submitted by a new entity, one having
>> the website as its primary mission. And we concluded that the neighborhood
>> names might best be issued to contracted parties, committed to the
>> principals set out on neighborhoods.nyc, with periodic reviews to establish
>> compliance. A scenario of this sort would require an investment for start
>> up and oversight.
>>
>> The adoption of a resident-focused nexus policy was another positive
>> action by de Blasio. Properly administered and enforced nexus can foster a
>> range of benefits from civic pride to security and economic development.
>> Our review of registrations revealed some questionable registrant addresses
>> and we look forward to the initiation of planned random audits and for a
>> public reporting of results.
>>
>> A  key sign of community success will arrive when .nyc names are being
>> used to create new civic and business connections. Over the last several
>> months we’ve sought to understand who is registering the domain names. Are
>> names being registered to make new connections and new markets? Are New
>> Yorkers shifting their registrations to .nyc from .com, .net, .org and
>> other foreign TLDs? While we await a sophisticated analysis, an associate
>> has reviewed the daily log of new registrants. The dominant impression is
>> that registrations are largely for generic names, as opposed to those of
>> existing businesses. Looked at in concert with the high rate of parked
>> names, this might indicate a multitude of speculative purchases. But one
>> might see a positive side to this: the names of existing businesses are
>> apparently not being squatted upon and remain available.
>> Community Opportunities
>>
>> One of the key benefits we foresaw for New Yorkers and visitors alike was
>> an intuitive Internet where our everyday language would be our guide. Using
>> the Commissioners’ Plan of 1811
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioners%27_Plan_of_1811> as
>> inspiration, we advanced the model of viewing .nyc as a digital grid where
>> ease-of-use and clarity would result from the thoughtful allocation of
>> names – bikes.nyc, bakeries.nyc, drugstores.nyc, schools.nyc, etc. But the
>> city opted for the speed and simplicity of a Land Rush
>> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/the-nyc-landrush-auctions-adding-injury-to-insult/>
>> distribution process (first-come first-served), which released thousands of
>> intuitive names for unknown uses. The results are trickling in.
>>
>> Today, New Yorkers typing hardwarestores.nyc will be presented with the
>> services offered by a single locksmith, not an organized presentation of
>> the desired stores. They’ll need to sift through Google’s global results to
>> locate their local hardware store. The local hardware store will need to
>> pay Google if it hopes to be found there. And a job will not be created for
>> the local operator of hardwarestores.nyc. It’s a loose-loose-loose
>> situation for New York.
>>
>> But there’s still an opportunity to foster an intuitive .nyc, where
>> language holds its traditional meaning. Within the 21,000 unallocated
>> Reserved, Premium, and Collision names the city can identify widely
>> understood names (words would be a better descriptive) and require Public
>> Interest Commitments (see our recommendations
>> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/report-premium-nyc-domain-names-public-interest-commitments-12-18-2014/>)
>> by the developers of these domain names.
>>
>> If .nyc is to gain a reputation as a reliable and useful TLD – where
>> people are confident that typing a domain name will deliver the desired
>> result, names like pizza.nyc and hotels.nyc can’t simply market traditional
>> brands. That is, pizza.nyc can’t lead to Pizza Hut and hotels.nyc can’t
>> provide the choice of all the city’s Hilton Hotels. This will be the likely
>> consequence if a high bid auction determiners development rights.
>>
>> For .nyc to succeed these domain names need to aide residents and
>> visitors alike in learning about the history, variety, and depth of our
>> pizza and hospitality industries. This can only be achieved via contractual
>> Public Interest Commitments.
>>
>> Additionally, Mayor de Blasio can select a few of the unallocated names
>> and provide those on the other side of the digital divide with the
>> opportunity to apply their entrepreneurial talents to developing the .nyc
>> TLD.
>> Concerns
>>
>> Since 2009, when the city announced its intent to acquire .nyc, there
>> have been few meaningful opportunities for public engagement in .nyc’s
>> planning and oversight process. Access was virtually nonexistent during the
>> Bloomberg years. Initially the de Blasio Administration was more receptive
>> to public engagement, indeed, during 2014 a .NYC Community Advisory Board
>> met on a monthly basis, with two from our organization appointed as
>> members. However, when that Board ceased operating in December, public
>> access to the oversight process ceased.
>>
>> The importance of governance and access was brought to mind recently when
>> we received an invitation to attend a Digital.nyc Five Borough Tour
>> <http://www.digital.nyc/events/digital-dot-nyc-five-borough-tour-number-bronx>.
>> Curious about the event and its genesis we visited the digital.nyc website
>> where the sponsors were described:
>>
>> Digital.NYC is the official online hub of the New York City startup and
>> technology ecosystem, bringing together every company, startup, investor,
>> event, job, class, blog, video, workspace, accelerator, incubator, resource
>> and organization in the five boroughs. It is the result of a unique
>> public/private partnership between the office of Mayor Bill de Blasio, the
>> New York City Economic Development Corporation, IBM, Gust, and over a dozen
>> leading NYC-based technology and media companies.
>>
>> Curious, we reviewed the Reserved Names and found digital.nyc listed. Not
>> having been privy to this development while on the Advisory Board, we
>> wondered about the process by which they had obtained the domain name. With
>> this in mind we recalled a recent conversation predicting that fashion.nyc
>> would be developed in a similar manner to digital.nyc. Some research
>> revealed fashion.nyc to be on the Premium Names list and as having been
>> registered to Neustar, the contractor overseeing .nyc’s marketing and
>> operation, last week.
>>
>> Without transparency and a governance process, people may begin to think
>> the city’s TLD is being operated out of cigar box, or worse. And with
>> public trust central to its becoming a grid for our digital resources, such
>> perceptions can be highly detrimental.
>>
>> City Hall needs to add transparency and accountability to the operation
>> of the .nyc TLD. And it needs a representative and accessible governance
>> process that informs the public about how allocation decisions are made,
>> for what purpose, and by whom. And we need a process and timetable for
>> evaluating these allocations of the public’s resources.
>>
>> Soap Box: Our view is that a thoughtfully developed TLD provides the
>> infrastructure for a secure local Internet. That upon that base one can
>> build privacy, identity, and community. And that these will speed economic
>> growth and the creation of a more prosperous and livable city.
>> A Hollywood Ending
>>
>> This review turned out to be far longer than we anticipated. Those who’ve
>> stuck with it to the end get 7 .nyc treats. Enjoy.
>>
>>    - Archives.nyc <http://archives.nyc> – This site shows city
>>    information presented in an esthetically pleasing manner. Congratulations
>>    to the Municipal Archives.
>>    - MurdersIn.nyc – If we were giving awards this one would get the
>>    Bagel for creative use of a .nyc domain name.
>>    - Greenestreet.nyc – A wonderful presentation of the 400 year history
>>    of one small section of a city street. But we do have some qualms about
>>    ownership of this resource as detailed here
>>    <http://www.connectingnyc.org/of-master-plans-greenstreet-nyc/>.
>>    - Straphangers.nyc – We love this organization and as one might
>>    expect its an early occupant of the .nyc domain.
>>    - Visualizing.nyc
>>    <http://visualizing.nyc/bus-riding-the-best-kept-secret-of-nyc-transit/>
>>    – Be patient while this one loads. For map lovers.
>>    - Mammamia.nyc – Broadway’s first play to make it to the big time.
>>    - Prty.nyc <http://prty.nyc/sperm-visualizer/> – Dancing like you’ve
>>    never seen it before.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150301/dbd67b5d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 187x218xhalf-candle-258x300.png.pagespeed.ic.rDQZI_sVe9.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9275 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150301/dbd67b5d/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ymshana2003 at gmail.com  Sun Mar  1 06:40:17 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (Dr Yassin Mshana)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 13:40:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] Cigar Box Governance
In-Reply-To: <CANMQhZi-ErsqPYYH+g=mFv-3TWNr3TWBzLipJXuqQ65AZ3Q2Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54F110AD.4050206@communisphere.com>
	<CAM2OVBoCyE5pbOncJRO9Xu5e6FiGFSq=2N9+EOJza1-fBKOTfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANMQhZi-ErsqPYYH+g=mFv-3TWNr3TWBzLipJXuqQ65AZ3Q2Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM2OVBqPR-yWypdxwRBytAb-P8HM4xPnK=0nw3hKk0+6xBT8Hw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Chantal for that pointer..

As a volunteer in policy issues, I find it hard to believe the amount of
misinformation and massaged messages the users are fed with.

Time for Openness is now starting for Top to Bottom cadre.

Thank you again

Yassin
On 1 Mar 2015 12:18, "chlebrum ." <chlebrum at gmail.com> wrote:

> if you want information on ICANN Domain Name real-life I recommend this
> French website
> http://www.dnsnews.fr
> you can translate text with Google Trad or other utility.
> Best interesting is links (most in English),
>
>
> Chantal Lebrument
> ​Courriel: c <lebrument at open-root.eu>hlebrum at gmail.com
> Mob: +33 6 8369 5460
>
> 2015-03-01 10:11 GMT+01:00 Dr Yassin Mshana <ymshana2003 at gmail.com>:
>
>> Greetings...!
>>
>> Thank you for this Health Check of the reality...it is True and very
>> concerning at Policy Level of the Internet business.
>>
>> It will be shocking if the same scenario is repeated by other similar
>> TLDs...which is like painting a misleading picture?
>>
>> Accountability and Transparency are crucial in this type of business..
>>
>> Can we hear more from the analysis of other new TLDs please..?
>>
>> It is easier to say the Truth than hidding it.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Yassin Mshana
>> On 28 Feb 2015 02:50, "Thomas Lowenhaupt" <toml at communisphere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  While most attention here is on global governance, I thought you might
>>> be interested in what it's sometimes like at the bottom. Here's a post we
>>> made today reviewing the first 6 months of the .nyc TLD's operation:
>>> http://connectingnyc.org. (I've copied it below for the convenience of
>>> some.)
>>>
>>> While I entitled it *Digital.nyc - A Status Report*, with the .nyc
>>> TLD's operation lacking transparency, accountability, or a governance
>>> process it might better be called Cigar Box Governance.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Tom Lowenhaupt
>>> Digital.nyc – A Status Report
>>> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/digital-nyc/>
>>>
>>> Posted by: Editor <http://www.connectingnyc.org/author/editor/>
>>>
>>> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/digital-nyc/half-candle/>Jackson Hts.,
>>> New York, February 24, 2015 – We’re a 1/2 candle into the life of our
>>> city’s TLD and an appropriate time for an evaluation. But with .nyc’s
>>> success metrics undefined, an assessment is challenging. Hoping that we
>>> might contribute to a long term analytical framework, we decided to
>>> undertake this first review.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, there are two competing perspectives on a TLD’s success,
>>> the standard and community. The metric used for assessing standard TLDs
>>> such as .com, .net, and .org is based on the number of names sold. We honor
>>> that tradition by presenting a statistical review.
>>>
>>> For community TLDs, the operational approach we’ve advocated, success
>>> comprises a positive impact on the delivery of city services, economic
>>> enhancement, and an improved quality of life. We took a first stroke at
>>> identifying community metrics on our wiki
>>> <http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/city-tld-metrics-checklist>
>>> some time ago. With community enhancements emerging from long term
>>> development efforts, an assessment at this early stage is challenging. What
>>> we do here is look at some early actions and how they might influence those
>>> long term goals.
>>> Traditional Metrics
>>>
>>> Let’s start with some stats on the number of .nyc domain names sold.
>>>
>>>    - As of February 22, the city’s contractor reported 72,103 names
>>>    sold with sales at a rate of about 90 registrations per day. (See
>>>    more current stats here <https://ntldstats.com/tld/nyc>.
>>>    <https://ntldstats.com/tld/nyc>)
>>>    - Of those, 74.27% or 52,672 were “parked.” A parked domain is one
>>>    purchased but without any meaningful content (see keys.nyc for an
>>>    example). Names purchased for speculative purposes might be parked. And
>>>    with .nyc being a new TLD, many are surely parked while under development.
>>>    - That 74% of parked domains has been inching down over the months.
>>>    For comparison .berlin has 73% parked, .london 36%, .paris 48%, and .tokyo
>>>    55%. (Might we induce a level of speculative purchases from these?)
>>>    - Doing some subtraction (72,103 – 52,672) one might conclude that
>>>    19,431 .nyc domain names are providing some level of content. But…
>>>    - A February 21 Google search using the “Site:.nyc” command revealed
>>>    only 458 websites. (Google reported a total of 940 finds, a number
>>>    consisting of both primary names and their duplicates.) We’re looking for
>>>    an explanation for this discrepancy.
>>>    - We looked at the first 100 of those 458 “Site:.nyc” sites and
>>>    found 40% used the .nyc domain name to present content. The other 60%
>>>    merely linked to a .com or .org site.
>>>
>>> In addition to these 72,103 sold names, 21,000 names have been created
>>> but not allocated. The unallocated fall into three categories.
>>>
>>>    - 800 Reserved Names
>>>    <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZXMFe-C2PU6KIRPbZKfLkk63i2k5u7Uz2wDikqWPeZg/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>    – Names set aside to serve the public’s benefit. Three fourths of these
>>>    names are those of neighborhoods or Business Improvement Districts (BIDs),
>>>    e.g., see 125thstreet.nyc. Included also are some generic and
>>>    category names, e.g., taxi.nyc, tours.nyc, and digital.nyc, about which we
>>>    have more to say below.
>>>    - 3,092 Premium Names
>>>    <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qeEPuuPQ3MxzDtUjNpWZy5milRVISvt-4QqBmHRgENQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>    – These names were set aside for distribution through high-bid auctions,
>>>    scheduled to begin in early 2015. We’ve advocated for attaching Public
>>>    Interest Commitments (PICs) to many of these names, believing social and
>>>    economic equity and a stronger TLD will result. A recent  panel
>>>    report
>>>    <http://www.connectingnyc.org/report-premium-nyc-domain-names-public-interest-commitments-12-18-2014/>
>>>    detailed these recommendations.
>>>    - 17,000 Collision Names
>>>    <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YYFOrvpZzwpb-gHHAzxBPhEa7etN6EiHomNASTSgH1A&authuser=0>
>>>    – The “Collision” names were excluded from allocation pending a review of
>>>    their impact on the operation of existing networks. Mayor.nyc and our own
>>>    connecting.nyc are two of the good names stuck in this batch. The vast
>>>    majority of collision names are of little consequence, but all are expected
>>>    to become available in mid 2015.
>>>
>>> While we have some statistics to guide our Traditional Metrics
>>> evaluation, doing so for the Community-TLD perspective is a bit more
>>> challenging.
>>> The Community View
>>>
>>> Early in 2014 Mayor de Blasio announced that it had reserved nearly 400
>>> neighborhood names for development by entities representing the public
>>> interest. And it created a path for their allocation – see
>>> neighborhoods.nyc <http://neighborhoods.nyc>. We tested the proposed
>>> allocation process recently by encouraging local civic entities to apply
>>> for the JacksonHeights.nyc name. We chose Jackson Heights because it
>>> represented the home team – we’re based there – and it has a young
>>> entrepreneurial population engaged with tech.
>>>
>>> The response was lukewarm at best. Only one organization indicated it
>>> might take on the site’s development. And that commitment was on an “as
>>> time allows” basis. Also, no existing organization matched the proposed
>>> governance standard.
>>>
>>> We concluded that if a suitable application was to be filed for
>>> JacksonHeights.nyc, it would best be submitted by a new entity, one having
>>> the website as its primary mission. And we concluded that the neighborhood
>>> names might best be issued to contracted parties, committed to the
>>> principals set out on neighborhoods.nyc, with periodic reviews to establish
>>> compliance. A scenario of this sort would require an investment for start
>>> up and oversight.
>>>
>>> The adoption of a resident-focused nexus policy was another positive
>>> action by de Blasio. Properly administered and enforced nexus can foster a
>>> range of benefits from civic pride to security and economic development.
>>> Our review of registrations revealed some questionable registrant addresses
>>> and we look forward to the initiation of planned random audits and for a
>>> public reporting of results.
>>>
>>> A  key sign of community success will arrive when .nyc names are being
>>> used to create new civic and business connections. Over the last several
>>> months we’ve sought to understand who is registering the domain names. Are
>>> names being registered to make new connections and new markets? Are New
>>> Yorkers shifting their registrations to .nyc from .com, .net, .org and
>>> other foreign TLDs? While we await a sophisticated analysis, an associate
>>> has reviewed the daily log of new registrants. The dominant impression is
>>> that registrations are largely for generic names, as opposed to those of
>>> existing businesses. Looked at in concert with the high rate of parked
>>> names, this might indicate a multitude of speculative purchases. But one
>>> might see a positive side to this: the names of existing businesses are
>>> apparently not being squatted upon and remain available.
>>> Community Opportunities
>>>
>>> One of the key benefits we foresaw for New Yorkers and visitors alike
>>> was an intuitive Internet where our everyday language would be our guide.
>>> Using the Commissioners’ Plan of 1811
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioners%27_Plan_of_1811> as
>>> inspiration, we advanced the model of viewing .nyc as a digital grid where
>>> ease-of-use and clarity would result from the thoughtful allocation of
>>> names – bikes.nyc, bakeries.nyc, drugstores.nyc, schools.nyc, etc. But the
>>> city opted for the speed and simplicity of a Land Rush
>>> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/the-nyc-landrush-auctions-adding-injury-to-insult/>
>>> distribution process (first-come first-served), which released thousands of
>>> intuitive names for unknown uses. The results are trickling in.
>>>
>>> Today, New Yorkers typing hardwarestores.nyc will be presented with the
>>> services offered by a single locksmith, not an organized presentation of
>>> the desired stores. They’ll need to sift through Google’s global results to
>>> locate their local hardware store. The local hardware store will need to
>>> pay Google if it hopes to be found there. And a job will not be created for
>>> the local operator of hardwarestores.nyc. It’s a loose-loose-loose
>>> situation for New York.
>>>
>>> But there’s still an opportunity to foster an intuitive .nyc, where
>>> language holds its traditional meaning. Within the 21,000 unallocated
>>> Reserved, Premium, and Collision names the city can identify widely
>>> understood names (words would be a better descriptive) and require Public
>>> Interest Commitments (see our recommendations
>>> <http://www.connectingnyc.org/report-premium-nyc-domain-names-public-interest-commitments-12-18-2014/>)
>>> by the developers of these domain names.
>>>
>>> If .nyc is to gain a reputation as a reliable and useful TLD – where
>>> people are confident that typing a domain name will deliver the desired
>>> result, names like pizza.nyc and hotels.nyc can’t simply market traditional
>>> brands. That is, pizza.nyc can’t lead to Pizza Hut and hotels.nyc can’t
>>> provide the choice of all the city’s Hilton Hotels. This will be the likely
>>> consequence if a high bid auction determiners development rights.
>>>
>>> For .nyc to succeed these domain names need to aide residents and
>>> visitors alike in learning about the history, variety, and depth of our
>>> pizza and hospitality industries. This can only be achieved via contractual
>>> Public Interest Commitments.
>>>
>>> Additionally, Mayor de Blasio can select a few of the unallocated names
>>> and provide those on the other side of the digital divide with the
>>> opportunity to apply their entrepreneurial talents to developing the .nyc
>>> TLD.
>>> Concerns
>>>
>>> Since 2009, when the city announced its intent to acquire .nyc, there
>>> have been few meaningful opportunities for public engagement in .nyc’s
>>> planning and oversight process. Access was virtually nonexistent during the
>>> Bloomberg years. Initially the de Blasio Administration was more receptive
>>> to public engagement, indeed, during 2014 a .NYC Community Advisory Board
>>> met on a monthly basis, with two from our organization appointed as
>>> members. However, when that Board ceased operating in December, public
>>> access to the oversight process ceased.
>>>
>>> The importance of governance and access was brought to mind recently
>>> when we received an invitation to attend a Digital.nyc Five Borough Tour
>>> <http://www.digital.nyc/events/digital-dot-nyc-five-borough-tour-number-bronx>.
>>> Curious about the event and its genesis we visited the digital.nyc website
>>> where the sponsors were described:
>>>
>>> Digital.NYC is the official online hub of the New York City startup and
>>> technology ecosystem, bringing together every company, startup, investor,
>>> event, job, class, blog, video, workspace, accelerator, incubator, resource
>>> and organization in the five boroughs. It is the result of a unique
>>> public/private partnership between the office of Mayor Bill de Blasio, the
>>> New York City Economic Development Corporation, IBM, Gust, and over a dozen
>>> leading NYC-based technology and media companies.
>>>
>>> Curious, we reviewed the Reserved Names and found digital.nyc listed.
>>> Not having been privy to this development while on the Advisory Board, we
>>> wondered about the process by which they had obtained the domain name. With
>>> this in mind we recalled a recent conversation predicting that fashion.nyc
>>> would be developed in a similar manner to digital.nyc. Some research
>>> revealed fashion.nyc to be on the Premium Names list and as having been
>>> registered to Neustar, the contractor overseeing .nyc’s marketing and
>>> operation, last week.
>>>
>>> Without transparency and a governance process, people may begin to think
>>> the city’s TLD is being operated out of cigar box, or worse. And with
>>> public trust central to its becoming a grid for our digital resources, such
>>> perceptions can be highly detrimental.
>>>
>>> City Hall needs to add transparency and accountability to the operation
>>> of the .nyc TLD. And it needs a representative and accessible governance
>>> process that informs the public about how allocation decisions are made,
>>> for what purpose, and by whom. And we need a process and timetable for
>>> evaluating these allocations of the public’s resources.
>>>
>>> Soap Box: Our view is that a thoughtfully developed TLD provides the
>>> infrastructure for a secure local Internet. That upon that base one can
>>> build privacy, identity, and community. And that these will speed economic
>>> growth and the creation of a more prosperous and livable city.
>>> A Hollywood Ending
>>>
>>> This review turned out to be far longer than we anticipated. Those
>>> who’ve stuck with it to the end get 7 .nyc treats. Enjoy.
>>>
>>>    - Archives.nyc <http://archives.nyc> – This site shows city
>>>    information presented in an esthetically pleasing manner. Congratulations
>>>    to the Municipal Archives.
>>>    - MurdersIn.nyc – If we were giving awards this one would get the
>>>    Bagel for creative use of a .nyc domain name.
>>>    - Greenestreet.nyc – A wonderful presentation of the 400 year
>>>    history of one small section of a city street. But we do have some qualms
>>>    about ownership of this resource as detailed here
>>>    <http://www.connectingnyc.org/of-master-plans-greenstreet-nyc/>.
>>>    - Straphangers.nyc – We love this organization and as one might
>>>    expect its an early occupant of the .nyc domain.
>>>    - Visualizing.nyc
>>>    <http://visualizing.nyc/bus-riding-the-best-kept-secret-of-nyc-transit/>
>>>    – Be patient while this one loads. For map lovers.
>>>    - Mammamia.nyc – Broadway’s first play to make it to the big time.
>>>    - Prty.nyc <http://prty.nyc/sperm-visualizer/> – Dancing like you’ve
>>>    never seen it before.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150301/a6c69b90/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 187x218xhalf-candle-258x300.png.pagespeed.ic.rDQZI_sVe9.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9275 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150301/a6c69b90/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Sun Mar  1 09:41:58 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 10:41:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: The Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <CANf7=M0YLiF-hVK1qh0Pqi3EO+s0oKiuPp06R_a1kF7ymGEVCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANf7=M0YLiF-hVK1qh0Pqi3EO+s0oKiuPp06R_a1kF7ymGEVCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F32536.70401@gmail.com>


Dear friends,

this message i will distribute also here. The data in the appendix i 
have deleted. You can find the links to the texts in french and spanish 
on the website on the right side.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [bestbits] The Internet Social Forum
Datum: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:18:52 +0530
Von: Rishab Bailey <rishab.bailey at gmail.com>
An: Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Hi,

Attached is a communication from a global group of civil society
organisations (in English, French and Spanish) who are proposing to hold 
an Internet Social Forum, taking inspiration from the World Social 
Forum. The preparatory process for the Internet Social Forum (ISF) will 
be kicked off at a workshop at the World Social Forum, Tunis, March, 2015.

The call can also be found at www.InternetSocialForum.net.

You are invited, in an organisational capacity or as individuals, to
participate in the ISF initiative, towards visioning a people's 
Internet, that can underpin a global democratic and egalitarian society. 
The ISF will follow the World Social Forum participation criteria which 
can be found here
<https://fsm2015.org/en/criteria-participation>.

The ISF initiative will have both an online and physical aspects - we 
will work through an e-list and also hold ISF f2f meetings.

Apart from your cooperation and collaborations, suggestions for how to
proceed are also welcome.

We are of course happy to respond to any questions that you may have in 
the above regard.

We look forward to hearing from you, and please feel free to forward 
this message to others.

Regards,
Rishab
for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  2 02:04:10 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 02:04:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] PPV WEBCAST MON/TUES - F2C: Freedom to Connect 2015
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3DnvNyxmpq0Um0sUXdbUMji20h=K=0tox1qoqqbtUHYw@mail.gmail.com>

At F2C 2012 Aaron Swartz  talked
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg> about how he had led the the
fight to defeat SOPA/PIPA. At F2C 2013 Glen Greenwald, just embarking on
his Snowden odyssey, talked <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmvwFt-yPeo>
about the power of the people to reign in governmental malfeasance. Who
will be the star of F2C 2015? There are plenty of good candidates...
Save <https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/>

 joly posted: "On Monday/Tuesday March 2-3 2015 the F2C:Freedom to Connect
conference will be held at Civic Hall in NYC. Speakers include: Andrew
Rasiej, Micah Sifry, Cayden Mak, Susan Crawford, Eben Moglen, David P Reed,
Dan Geer, Molly Crabapple, Chris Ritzo, Hilary "


[image: F2C: Freedom to Connect 2015]
<http://freedom-to-connect.net/%22>On *Monday/Tuesday
March 2-3 2015* the *F2C:Freedom to Connect*
<http://freedom-to-connect.net/> conference will be held at *Civic Hall* in
NYC. Speakers include: *Andrew Rasiej*, *Micah Sifry*, *Cayden Mak*, *Susan
Crawford*, *Eben Moglen*, *David P Reed*, *Dan Geer*, *Molly Crabapple*, *Chris
Ritzo*, *Hilary Mason*, *Lani Cossette*,* Aaron Wright*, *Nick Grossman*,*
Matthew L Jones*, *Marcy Wheeler*, *Trevor Timm*
​,
​​
*Bruce Schneier*
​,​
 *Dan Gillmor*, *Cory Doctorow*, *Milo Medin* , *Elliot Noss*, *Joanne
Hovis*, *Chris Mitchell*, *Hannah Sassaman*, *Jim Baller*, *Tim Wu*, *Gigi
Sohn*, *Harold Feld*, *Margaret Flowers*, *Evan Greer*, *Sarah Morris*, *Rashad
Robinson*, *Michal Rosenn*, *David Segal*, *Joseph Torres*, *Matt Wood*, *Kevin
Zeese*, *Tim Karr* & *Zephyr Teachout*.​
Founder, organizer and moderator is *David Isenberg*. The event, which is
sold out, will be *webcast live* <http://freedom-to-connect.cleeng.com/> by
the *Internet Society's North America Bureau*. There is a $25 charge to
view.










*What: F2C:Freedom to Connect <http://freedom-to-connect.net/> Where: Civic
Hall NYC When: Monday/Tuesday March 2-3 2015 9am-5pm EST | 14:00 - 22:00
UTC Agenda: http://freedom-to-connect.net/agenda.html
<http://freedom-to-connect.net/agenda.html> Webcast:
http://freedom-to-connect.cleeng.com/
<http://freedom-to-connect.cleeng.com/> ($25) Twitter: @f2c2015
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=f2c2015> Facebook: #f2c20a5
<https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/f2c2015> Google+: #f2c20a5
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/F2C2015>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7608#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7608#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7608





-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150302/c3fd9163/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Mon Mar  2 21:17:45 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:17:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] [discuss] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggd8QB-HdwCqY+iSk8wLW1Q9SX0+Oa08zPy53kVrPuzKSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com>	<00d701d0534c$85b3d700$911b8500$@ch>	<54F1AEEE.4040900@meetinghouse.net>	<CAMoZbCChgze8M9TOy+2HbWtiYBZr76yPUOkMNp0tSR3MDvqd1Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAN7p9b4mo9KSx5RKCNKVKZY3oUaSGnSXR=KGtQtsAF10N_Z+pg@mail.gmail.com>	<2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro>	<54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net>	<59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <nk.ca@mac.com>	<54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net>	<B979C8C3-D207-4589-B624-8C8995D56870@consensus.pro>	<9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org>	<1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>	<A0540259-A6AE-4335-BF7E-4CFEA2D2AC46@me.com>	<6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org>	<CAM3-B_zV+yFaOPsrqUO1B0sN2_-eGsPJkHfo47i8+6rb6xWHiA@mail.gmail.com>	<386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca>	<CAM3-B_ziXOvQCNpp+BvHrnzNES5wyFaywAqt73AcroT2x6M3nQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHxHggd8QB-HdwCqY+iSk8wLW1Q9SX0+Oa08zPy53kVrPuzKSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com>

Am 02/03/2015 um 06:37 p.m. schrieb Vint Cerf:
> i hope it is clear that CDNs, colocation, and even adjacencies with access
> ISPs reduces traffic on the Internet by placing content geographically
> closer to the recipients who are downloading or streaming.  Google, like
> many other sources of content, tries to make the aggregate Internet more
> efficient by increasing connectivity to edge access providers and major
> backbone networks.
>
> v

Dear friends,

for what we need IXP's, ISP's, monster CDN's or any other private 
instances? This constructions have nothing to do with the "InterNet". 
And the most reduction of transport volumes we can create with local 
server structures. Then all people in our world can use her local resources.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  2 21:25:22 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:25:22 +0800
Subject: [governance] [discuss] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
In-Reply-To: <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com>
References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com>
 <00d701d0534c$85b3d700$911b8500$@ch>
 <54F1AEEE.4040900@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAMoZbCChgze8M9TOy+2HbWtiYBZr76yPUOkMNp0tSR3MDvqd1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7p9b4mo9KSx5RKCNKVKZY3oUaSGnSXR=KGtQtsAF10N_Z+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro>
 <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net>
 <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli>
 <nk.ca@mac.com>
 <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net>
 <B979C8C3-D207-4589-B624-8C8995D56870@consensus.pro>
 <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org>
 <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <A0540259-A6AE-4335-BF7E-4CFEA2D2AC46@me.com>
 <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org>
 <CAM3-B_zV+yFaOPsrqUO1B0sN2_-eGsPJkHfo47i8+6rb6xWHiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca>
 <CAM3-B_ziXOvQCNpp+BvHrnzNES5wyFaywAqt73AcroT2x6M3nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggd8QB-HdwCqY+iSk8wLW1Q9SX0+Oa08zPy53kVrPuzKSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Why do you need cdns? Well, if you want to access say operating system 
updates, your email,  sports scores etc at about the same speed in Bolivia 
as people would be able to in whichever country the cdn was hosted.. That's 
where cdns come in handy.

Ixp? So isps in your area can exchange local traffic and keep it local, so 
mutually ensuring fast access for each other's customers to sites they 
host. Save on expensive international bandwidth too.

As for why you need isps, I do hope you want to connect to the Internet. 
You need an isp for that, you know.

Next question please?



On March 3, 2015 10:18:27 AM willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:

> Am 02/03/2015 um 06:37 p.m. schrieb Vint Cerf:
> > i hope it is clear that CDNs, colocation, and even adjacencies with access
> > ISPs reduces traffic on the Internet by placing content geographically
> > closer to the recipients who are downloading or streaming.  Google, like
> > many other sources of content, tries to make the aggregate Internet more
> > efficient by increasing connectivity to edge access providers and major
> > backbone networks.
> >
> > v
>
> Dear friends,
>
> for what we need IXP's, ISP's, monster CDN's or any other private
> instances? This constructions have nothing to do with the "InterNet".
> And the most reduction of transport volumes we can create with local
> server structures. Then all people in our world can use her local resources.
>
> many greetings, willi
> La Paz, Bolivia
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Tue Mar  3 15:03:56 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:03:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
In-Reply-To: <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <CAMoZbCChgze8M9TOy+2HbWtiYBZr76yPUOkMNp0tSR3MDvqd1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN7p9b4mo9KSx5RKCNKVKZY3oUaSGnSXR=KGtQtsAF10N_Z+pg@mail.gmail.com> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <nk.ca@mac.com> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <B979C8C3-D207-4589-B624-8C8995D56870@consensus.pro> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <A0540259-A6AE-4335-BF7E-4CFEA2D2AC46@me.com> <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org> <CAM3-B_zV+yFaOPsrqUO1B0sN2_-eGsPJkHfo47i8+6rb6xWHiA@mail.gmail.com> <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca> <CAM3-B_ziXOvQCNpp+BvHrnzNES5wyFaywAqt73AcroT2x6M3nQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHxHggd8QB-HdwCqY+iSk8wLW1Q9SX0+Oa08zPy53kVrPuzKSw@mail.gmail.com> <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com> <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hseru!
 s.net>
Message-ID: <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com>

Am 02/03/2015 um 10:25 p.m. schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian:
> Why do you need cdns? Well, if you want to access say operating system
> updates, your email,  sports scores etc at about the same speed in
> Bolivia as people would be able to in whichever country the cdn was
> hosted.. That's where cdns come in handy.
>
> Ixp? So isps in your area can exchange local traffic and keep it local,
> so mutually ensuring fast access for each other's customers to sites
> they host. Save on expensive international bandwidth too.
>
> As for why you need isps, I do hope you want to connect to the Internet.
> You need an isp for that, you know.
>
> Next question please?

Hello Suresh (from governance list),

you should really read the emails. Then you understand my answer. We 
don't need this stupid constructions. We need the InterNet, "the 
interconnection of local networks".

But this private networks, that are connected in IXP?s, with the private 
resource dealers, the ISP's, the private "Content Delivery Networks", a 
group of parasitic mafia, all this we don't need.

We need the InterNet.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


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

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

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

From lucabelli at hotmail.it  Tue Mar  3 15:41:02 2015
From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:41:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Papers - Dynamic Coalition on Network
 Neutrality
In-Reply-To:  <20150303110141.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.22a31608f4.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
References:  <20150303110141.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.22a31608f4.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <DUB122-W1B34F89D62A5B812FEAEDC6110@phx.gbl>





Dear all, (apologies for crossposting)

Please find below (and in attachment) the Call for Papers for the annual Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality.
The call may be directly downloaded here 

Submissions are due on 1st August 2015. Feel free to circulate this call.

All the best,
Luca


Dynamic Coalition on Network
Neutrality

Call for Papers

Network Neutrality:

Emerging Challenges and Concrete
Implementations

 

Background:

Over the past two years,
the importance of the network neutrality debate has become a priority for both
national and international policy makers. While the US has explicitly banned
discriminatory traffic management practices, such as blocking, throttling and
paid prioritisation, other countries have already implemented or are currently
formulating network neutrality laws and regulations, and even proposing to
incorporate net neutrality principles within an Internet Bill of Rights. At the same time, other
governments are still considering whether and how to properly regulate Internet
traffic management.

Even where the rule of
non-discrimination has been enshrined into law, the practical details of
implementation still have to be worked out. Some unanswered questions still
remain with regard to what actually constitutes discrimination, and how should
network neutrality principles be implemented into practice. On the other hand,
new commercial offers based on price discrimination, such as the “zero-rated”
services are being experimented in various countries by an increasing number of
Internet players, raising questions as regards their compatibility with the
non-discriminatory principles of network neutrality. On the one hand, Internet
access is increasingly supported by the proliferation of grassroots Community
Networks, relying on wireless connectivity and mesh networking technologies to
set up alternative and autonomous network infrastructures, designed by the community and for the community. The traffic
management practices adopted by these alternative initiatives remain unclear
and only a limited amount of research has been developed on the matter.

The 2015 Report of the
Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality aims at fostering a global reflection
with regard to the relationship between the network-neutrality principle and
the aforementioned emerging issues.  


Call:

The Dynamic Coalition on
Network Neutrality, established under the auspices of the United Nations
Internet Governance Forum, invites researchers and practitioners to submit a
position paper pertaining to Network Neutrality: Emerging Challenges and
Concrete Implementations.

After having explored the
instrumental role of NN in guaranteeing the full enjoyment of fundamental
rights and the existing
regulatory approaches to NN in different countries, the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality
seeks to trigger discussion around the emerging practices that might either
support or endanger the effective application of Network Neutrality principles,
considering the latest evolutions in Internet access.

Suggested topics
include analyses of, inter alia:

·        
Costs and benefits of price-discrimination schemes, such as zero-rating
practices

·        
Traffic
discrimination via unconventional broadband access (e.g. drones, balloons, etc.)

·        
Network neutrality approaches within Community Networks

·        
Net neutrality challenges linked the convergence of wireless and mobile
networks

·        
The value of network neutrality for the Internet of Things

·        
Case studies of net-neutrality law enforcement and regulatory implementation

 

Submission Guidelines: 

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

All paper shall
be in English language, and formatted according to the HWPiL style template. Submissions are
due on 1st August, 2015. They should
include the following elements:

·        
Title

·        
Short abstract
(250 words)

·        
Original
contribution

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

 

Submissions should be
sent to contact at networkneutrality.info Authors will be notified within approximately two weeks from the deadline as to the status of
their contributions.

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

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

Some of the authors will
also be invited (at their own expenses) to present their work at the annual DC
meeting to be held at the United Nation Internet Governance Forum, from 10 to 13
November 2015, in Joao Pessoa, Brazil.

 



_______________________________________________
NNcoalition mailing list
NNcoalition at mailman.edri.org
http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150303/5aebb389/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DC NN CallforPapers 2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 156339 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150303/5aebb389/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150303/5aebb389/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  3 15:50:39 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 05:50:39 +0900
Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
In-Reply-To: <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com>
References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com>
 <CAMoZbCChgze8M9TOy+2HbWtiYBZr76yPUOkMNp0tSR3MDvqd1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7p9b4mo9KSx5RKCNKVKZY3oUaSGnSXR=KGtQtsAF10N_Z+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro>
 <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net>
 <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli>
 <nk.ca@mac.com>
 <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net>
 <B979C8C3-D207-4589-B624-8C8995D56870@consensus.pro>
 <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org>
 <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <A0540259-A6AE-4335-BF7E-4CFEA2D2AC46@me.com>
 <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org>
 <CAM3-B_zV+yFaOPsrqUO1B0sN2_-eGsPJkHfo47i8+6rb6xWHiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca>
 <CAM3-B_ziXOvQCNpp+BvHrnzNES5wyFaywAqt73AcroT2x6M3nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggd8QB-HdwCqY+iSk8wLW1Q9SX0+Oa08zPy53kVrPuzKSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com>
 <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14be1679548.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

I am afraid you are talking about something you don't know first hand and 
don't understand to begin with.


On March 4, 2015 5:05:00 AM willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:

> Am 02/03/2015 um 10:25 p.m. schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian:
> > Why do you need cdns? Well, if you want to access say operating system
> > updates, your email,  sports scores etc at about the same speed in
> > Bolivia as people would be able to in whichever country the cdn was
> > hosted.. That's where cdns come in handy.
> >
> > Ixp? So isps in your area can exchange local traffic and keep it local,
> > so mutually ensuring fast access for each other's customers to sites
> > they host. Save on expensive international bandwidth too.
> >
> > As for why you need isps, I do hope you want to connect to the Internet.
> > You need an isp for that, you know.
> >
> > Next question please?
>
> Hello Suresh (from governance list),
>
> you should really read the emails. Then you understand my answer. We
> don't need this stupid constructions. We need the InterNet, "the
> interconnection of local networks".
>
> But this private networks, that are connected in IXP?s, with the private
> resource dealers, the ISP's, the private "Content Delivery Networks", a
> group of parasitic mafia, all this we don't need.
>
> We need the InterNet.
>
> many greetings, willi
> La Paz, Bolivia
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Tue Mar  3 16:12:22 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:12:22 +0000
Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
In-Reply-To: <14be1679548.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com>
 <CAMoZbCChgze8M9TOy+2HbWtiYBZr76yPUOkMNp0tSR3MDvqd1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7p9b4mo9KSx5RKCNKVKZY3oUaSGnSXR=KGtQtsAF10N_Z+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro>
 <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net>
 <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <nk.ca@mac.com>
 <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net>
 <B979C8C3-D207-4589-B624-8C8995D56870@consensus.pro>
 <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org>
 <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <A0540259-A6AE-4335-BF7E-4CFEA2D2AC46@me.com>
 <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org>
 <CAM3-B_zV+yFaOPsrqUO1B0sN2_-eGsPJkHfo47i8+6rb6xWHiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca>
 <CAM3-B_ziXOvQCNpp+BvHrnzNES5wyFaywAqt73AcroT2x6M3nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggd8QB-HdwCqY+iSk8wLW1Q9SX0+Oa08zPy53kVrPuzKSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com>
 <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com>,<14be1679548.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577920@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

+1

(meaning i am like willi)
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net]
Sent: Tuesday 3 March 2015 21:50
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 1net.org discuss; willi uebelherr
Subject: Re: [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet

I am afraid you are talking about something you don't know first hand and
don't understand to begin with.


On March 4, 2015 5:05:00 AM willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:

> Am 02/03/2015 um 10:25 p.m. schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian:
> > Why do you need cdns? Well, if you want to access say operating system
> > updates, your email,  sports scores etc at about the same speed in
> > Bolivia as people would be able to in whichever country the cdn was
> > hosted.. That's where cdns come in handy.
> >
> > Ixp? So isps in your area can exchange local traffic and keep it local,
> > so mutually ensuring fast access for each other's customers to sites
> > they host. Save on expensive international bandwidth too.
> >
> > As for why you need isps, I do hope you want to connect to the Internet.
> > You need an isp for that, you know.
> >
> > Next question please?
>
> Hello Suresh (from governance list),
>
> you should really read the emails. Then you understand my answer. We
> don't need this stupid constructions. We need the InterNet, "the
> interconnection of local networks".
>
> But this private networks, that are connected in IXP?s, with the private
> resource dealers, the ISP's, the private "Content Delivery Networks", a
> group of parasitic mafia, all this we don't need.
>
> We need the InterNet.
>
> many greetings, willi
> La Paz, Bolivia
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Tue Mar  3 16:46:53 2015
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:46:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577920@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com>
 <CAMoZbCChgze8M9TOy+2HbWtiYBZr76yPUOkMNp0tSR3MDvqd1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7p9b4mo9KSx5RKCNKVKZY3oUaSGnSXR=KGtQtsAF10N_Z+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net>
 <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <nk.ca@mac.com>
 <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <B979C8C3-D207-4589-B624-8C8995D56870@consensus.pro>
 <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <A0540259-A6AE-4335-BF7E-4CFEA2D2AC46@me.com> <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org>
 <CAM3-B_zV+yFaOPsrqUO1B0sN2_-eGsPJkHfo47i8+6rb6xWHiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca> <CAM3-B_ziXOvQCNpp+BvHrnzNES5wyFaywAqt73AcroT2x6M3nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggd8QB-HdwCqY+iSk8wLW1Q9SX0+Oa08zPy53kVrPuzKSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com> <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com>,<14be1679548.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577920@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <6E9196F1-E72A-4DE9-A8D4-38B7A159650E@gmail.com>

A large +1 to Suresh for his straightforward and rational contribution to this discussion, and for his persistence in providing sensible responses to the views expressed on this list.

George Sadowsky


On Mar 4, 2015, at 6:12 AM, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:

> +1
> 
> (meaning i am like willi)
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Tuesday 3 March 2015 21:50
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 1net.org discuss; willi uebelherr
> Subject: Re: [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
> 
> I am afraid you are talking about something you don't know first hand and
> don't understand to begin with.
> 
> 
> On March 4, 2015 5:05:00 AM willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Am 02/03/2015 um 10:25 p.m. schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian:
>>> Why do you need cdns? Well, if you want to access say operating system
>>> updates, your email,  sports scores etc at about the same speed in
>>> Bolivia as people would be able to in whichever country the cdn was
>>> hosted.. That's where cdns come in handy.
>>> 
>>> Ixp? So isps in your area can exchange local traffic and keep it local,
>>> so mutually ensuring fast access for each other's customers to sites
>>> they host. Save on expensive international bandwidth too.
>>> 
>>> As for why you need isps, I do hope you want to connect to the Internet.
>>> You need an isp for that, you know.
>>> 
>>> Next question please?
>> 
>> Hello Suresh (from governance list),
>> 
>> you should really read the emails. Then you understand my answer. We
>> don't need this stupid constructions. We need the InterNet, "the
>> interconnection of local networks".
>> 
>> But this private networks, that are connected in IXP?s, with the private
>> resource dealers, the ISP's, the private "Content Delivery Networks", a
>> group of parasitic mafia, all this we don't need.
>> 
>> We need the InterNet.
>> 
>> many greetings, willi
>> La Paz, Bolivia
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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 nb at bollow.ch  Wed Mar  4 08:55:52 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:55:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] Request for details on US and NZ objections to
 strengthening privacy
Message-ID: <20150304145552.30026748@quill>

Dear all

I'm not at UNESCO's "CONNECTing the Dots - Options For Future Action"
conference [1], but I've been told that US and NZ are objecting to the
inclusion of language in the outcome document that would call for
strengthening privacy.
[1] http://en.unesco.org/events/connecting-dots-options-future-action

Is someone able to provide details on this?

Has anyone besides US and NZ objected to the proposed call for
strengthening privacy?

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 nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 10:13:18 2015
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:13:18 +0000
Subject: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the
 Dots Conference"
Message-ID: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all

Just a  qiuick note that NESCO has requested that I say a few words in the
closing ceremony of their Net Study conference.

At this point I can only make general comments but I have  to say that  I
plan "Not to endorse" the  outcome document on behalf of the CS  I am
unable to speak for everyone

Any one has a contrary thought?

Best

Nnenna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/ec013f8d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Mar  4 10:33:30 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:33:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
 the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>

On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all
> 
> Just a  qiuick note that NESCO has requested that I say a few words in the closing ceremony of their Net Study conference.
> 
> At this point I can only make general comments but I have  to say that  I plan "Not to endorse" the  outcome document on behalf of the CS  I am unable to speak for everyone
> 
> Any one has a contrary thought?


You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/702ab142/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Mar  4 10:36:44 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:36:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
Message-ID: <866E0F0D-51A5-49E9-9F37-4D70CBC8491F@consensus.pro>

Something tells me that Nnenna will handle that side of things with her usual graciousness and style! :)

On 4 Mar 2015, at 16:33, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all
>> 
>> Just a  qiuick note that NESCO has requested that I say a few words in the closing ceremony of their Net Study conference.
>> 
>> At this point I can only make general comments but I have  to say that  I plan "Not to endorse" the  outcome document on behalf of the CS  I am unable to speak for everyone
>> 
>> Any one has a contrary thought?
> 
> 
> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.
> 
> -- 
> 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 ::
> 
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> 
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
> 
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/bf13459b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/bf13459b/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Mar  4 10:42:12 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:42:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
Message-ID: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>

On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.


Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/4ef11f18/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Mar  4 10:54:17 2015
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:54:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <866E0F0D-51A5-49E9-9F37-4D70CBC8491F@consensus.pro>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <866E0F0D-51A5-49E9-9F37-4D70CBC8491F@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <54F72AA9.6000804@cdt.org>

Perhaps I have missed the discussion but why the decision not to endorse 
and when or where did CS agree that position?

On 3/4/2015 4:36 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Something tells me that Nnenna will handle that side of things with 
> her usual graciousness and style! :)
>
> On 4 Mar 2015, at 16:33, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org 
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Just a  qiuick note that NESCO has requested that I say a few words 
>>> in the closing ceremony of their Net Study conference.
>>>
>>> At this point I can only make general comments but I have  to say 
>>> that  I plan "Not to endorse" the  outcome document on behalf of the 
>>> CS  I am unable to speak for everyone
>>>
>>> Any one has a contrary thought?
>>
>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the 
>> opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and 
>> acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would 
>> otherwise have been because of this.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>>
>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>>
>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/99b4c2ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Mar  4 10:51:03 2015
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:51:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <866E0F0D-51A5-49E9-9F37-4D70CBC8491F@consensus.pro>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <866E0F0D-51A5-49E9-9F37-4D70CBC8491F@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <54F729E7.8070801@cdt.org>

Perhaps I have missed the discussion but why the decision not to endorse 
and when or where did CS agree that position?

On 3/4/2015 4:36 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Something tells me that Nnenna will handle that side of things with 
> her usual graciousness and style! :)
>
> On 4 Mar 2015, at 16:33, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org 
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Just a  qiuick note that NESCO has requested that I say a few words 
>>> in the closing ceremony of their Net Study conference.
>>>
>>> At this point I can only make general comments but I have  to say 
>>> that  I plan "Not to endorse" the  outcome document on behalf of the 
>>> CS  I am unable to speak for everyone
>>>
>>> Any one has a contrary thought?
>>
>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the 
>> opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and 
>> acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would 
>> otherwise have been because of this.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>>
>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>>
>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/f3f207ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  4 10:56:19 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:26:19 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
Message-ID: <54F72B23.3090703@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 04 March 2015 09:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org 
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the 
>> opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and 
>> acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would 
>> otherwise have been because of this.
>
> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent 
> all of civil society.

Sure do so, Nnenna. It will be appropriate. But in the same vein, by the 
same standard, also do spend enough time describing the point of view 
why a big global coalition finds it so surprising and disappointing that 
their should be such active resistance to use the simple term (and 
ideal) of democracy, which was turned down saying that it carries 
baggage !!?? So democracy today carries baggage. People who said this 
would be accountable for it. Also, since when it is asserted that for 
UNESCO's Internet related mandate civil and political rights are 
meaningful but not economic, social and cultural rights. Does not right 
to access Internet, and access knowledge and information directly 
connect to and arise from so many recognised social, economic and 
cultural rights? Is it not our right to defend democracy and social/ 
economic/ cultural rights. What was wrong that Just NEt asked for.

Please do also put this point of view, apart from others. Thanks and 
best wishes... parminder

>  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just 
> disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to 
> its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with 
> “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during 
> the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to 
> the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 
>  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by 
> consensus.
>
> -- 
> 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 ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/4dbc2040/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Mar  4 11:16:56 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 17:16:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F72AA9.6000804@cdt.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <866E0F0D-51A5-49E9-9F37-4D70CBC8491F@consensus.pro> <54F72AA9.6000804@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5A34892D-5F33-43A6-828F-19F7DFEB32E0@eff.org>

On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps I have missed the discussion but why the decision not to endorse and when or where did CS agree that position?

No that’s what Nnenna meant - she is on the podium now and she just said something like “Does civil society endorse the outcome document?  Personally I do, but civil society is so diverse that I cannot speak for everyone."

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/4df75f4a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  4 11:21:07 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:51:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
Message-ID: <54F730F3.3080006@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 04 March 2015 09:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org 
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the 
>> opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and 
>> acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would 
>> otherwise have been because of this.
>
> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent 
> all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the 
> coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to 
> the document due to its omission to qualify references to 
> multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated 
> was not objected to during the last drafting session)

If so, I will be interested to know who objected to use of the term 
'democratic' and on what grounds. parminder

> , and its omission to include a reference to the International 
> Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his 
> objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>
> -- 
> 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 ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/3d78a39c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 11:22:46 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:22:46 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
Message-ID: <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>

However, the Just Net Coalition does represent a rather significant component of civil society and arguably a numerically rather larger component than do certain other components such as those gathered around Best Bits.

 

BTW, since when did Civil Society not support democracy as a fundamental anchor for any governance process.  I would suggest in fact that it is again arguable that any group which did not endorse democracy as a fundamental principle would find itself ostracized and shunned within any conventional civil society grouping.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: March 4, 2015 7:42 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna Nwakanma; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> > wrote:

 

You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.

 

Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.

 

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> 

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

 

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220

OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

 

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:

https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/7cb1b565/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  4 11:39:12 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 22:09:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 04 March 2015 09:52 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> However, the Just Net Coalition does represent a rather significant 
> component of civil society and arguably a numerically rather larger 
> component than do certain other components such as those gathered 
> around Best Bits.
>
> BTW, since when did Civil Society not support democracy as a 
> fundamental anchor for any governance process.  I would suggest in 
> fact that it is again arguable that any group which did not endorse 
> democracy as a fundamental principle would find itself ostracized and 
> shunned within any conventional civil society grouping.
>

Like for instance in a women's rights group there are some red-lines, 
some things cannot be said, and some cannot be spoken against. Every 
political group has some red lines, and civil society involved with 
Internet governance must also have some. To me resisting mention of 
'democratic' in an IG document with the claim that the term carries 
'baggage' certainly qualifies as such a redline.The fact that some  
'civil society' persons sided with US and its allies (who as the key 
power-holders in the global IG realm have their obvious reasons) to do 
so indeed makes it a sad day for public interest advocacy.... parminder
>
> M
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm
> *Sent:* March 4, 2015 7:42 AM
> *To:* Jeremy Malcolm
> *Cc:* Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna Nwakanma; 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org 
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>     You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the
>     opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and
>     acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it
>     would otherwise have been because of this.
>
> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent 
> all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the 
> coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to 
> the document due to its omission to qualify references to 
> multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated 
> was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its 
> omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on 
> Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the 
> document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>
> -- 
>
> Jeremy Malcolm
>
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/2a6ad5cf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Mar  4 11:46:46 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 17:46:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20150304174646.31374cab@quill>

On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:42:12 +0100
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
> Richard Hill on behalf of the
> coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to
> the document due to its omission to qualify references to
> multi-stakeholderism with “democratic”

Since when does a formal objection in the context of a supposedly
consensus based process constitute having "disrupted the meeting"???

> (which he incorrectly stated
> was not objected to during the last drafting session),

Who objected during the last drafting session, and on what basis?

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, Just Net Coalition

> and its
> omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on
> Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the
> document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed Mar  4 11:51:49 2015
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:51:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <5A34892D-5F33-43A6-828F-19F7DFEB32E0@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <866E0F0D-51A5-49E9-9F37-4D70CBC8491F@consensus.pro> <54F72AA9.6000804@cdt.org> <5A34892D-5F33-43A6-828F-19F7DFEB32E0@eff.org>
Message-ID: <54F73825.40206@cdt.org>

My mistake - and apologies - should have read the entire thread - and my 
fingers  got carried away with my day long frustration with the UNESCO wifi!

Matthew

On 3/4/2015 5:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org 
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I have missed the discussion but why the decision not to 
>> endorse and when or where did CS agree that position?
>
> No that’s what Nnenna meant - she is on the podium now and she just 
> said something like “Does civil society endorse the outcome document? 
>  Personally I do, but civil society is so diverse that I cannot speak 
> for everyone."
>
> -- 
> 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 ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/2ff612c9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 11:56:48 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:56:48 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <0e5001d0569c$34dc15b0$9e944110$@gmail.com>

Jeremy’s comments also re-raises the issue of “who is in the room”, how they got there and who funded their participation.  That Richard was alone in his intervention probably said more about the way in which funding for travel to the meeting was available and to whom and from whom than it was a measure of support (or lack of support) for specific positions vs. a vis. the outcome document.

 

This raises again the absolute need for transparency concerning funding support for those who are presenting themselves as representing “civil society” at meeting such as this one.

 

M

 

From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: March 4, 2015 8:39 AM
To: Michael Gurstein; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Cc: 'Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC'; 'Nnenna Nwakanma'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

 

On Wednesday 04 March 2015 09:52 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

However, the Just Net Coalition does represent a rather significant component of civil society and arguably a numerically rather larger component than do certain other components such as those gathered around Best Bits.

 

BTW, since when did Civil Society not support democracy as a fundamental anchor for any governance process.  I would suggest in fact that it is again arguable that any group which did not endorse democracy as a fundamental principle would find itself ostracized and shunned within any conventional civil society grouping.


Like for instance in a women's rights group there are some red-lines, some things cannot be said, and some cannot be spoken against. Every political group has some red lines, and civil society involved with Internet governance must also have some. To me resisting mention of 'democratic' in an IG document with the claim that the term carries 'baggage' certainly qualifies as such a redline.The fact that some  'civil society' persons sided with US and its allies (who as the key power-holders in the global IG realm have their obvious reasons) to do so indeed makes it a sad day for public interest advocacy.... parminder 



 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>  [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: March 4, 2015 7:42 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna Nwakanma;  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> > wrote:

 

You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.

 

Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.

 

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> 

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

 

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220

OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

 

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:

https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

 






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/b1a450e2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 11:56:29 2015
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:56:29 +0000
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO Connecting
 the Dots Conference
Message-ID: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>

Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action

UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma

Africa Regional Coordinator

The World Wide Web Foundation.

March 4, 2015



Deputy Director General
Friends and colleagues
Onsite and online





My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to say
a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I
coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent,
Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the
Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all,
we work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global
Web We Want Coalition.



I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The
second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from
here.

>From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation towards
the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive
as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in
its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of
the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation)
are not just important for the study, but they also are key in implementing
its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we engage as civil
society, during, now and going forward.


Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too
large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.



On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the
Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report.
Affordability
Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the
Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average
40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.


And we are working  towards access for everyone.



To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance
and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global
benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet
Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.

-        - In working for  access to knowledge and information,

-        - in working  for freedom of expression

-        - in working for privacy

-        - in working for ethics

We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are
connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to
knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting
the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable
future.


We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values

And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization

These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here,
we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage



Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday.
And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes
open or closed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep one
open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..


*That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global public
good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone
can access it can use it  freely.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/faae7729/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Mar  4 11:59:04 2015
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:59:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Text of speech - losing remarks at
 UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F739D8.1030202@cdt.org>

Wonderful!

On 3/4/2015 5:56 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>
> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
>
> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
>
> Africa Regional Coordinator
>
> The World Wide Web Foundation.
>
> March 4, 2015
>
> Deputy Director General
> Friends and colleagues
> Onsite and online
>
> My name is Nnenna.Icome from the Internet. And I have been asked to 
> say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we 
> leave. I coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in 
> my continent, Africa. The Web Foundation isthat organization that 
> believes that the Internet is for everyone.Therefore we work on 
> affordable access to all, we work on opening up data for participation 
> and we supportthe global Web We Want Coalition.
>
> I have three things to say.The first is on the UNESCO study itself.The 
> second is on one of the issues raised.The third ison where we go from 
> here.
>
> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation 
> towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be 
> as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the 
> organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. 
> The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, 
> Multistakeholder participation) are not just important for the study, 
> but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.Soit is only 
> natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.
>
>
> Do we endorse the outcomedocument? I do.But the Civil Society is too 
> large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all 
> others.
>
> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.Just today, the 
> Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. 
> Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in 
> poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed 
> broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 
> developing countries.
>
>
> And we are working towards access for everyone.
>
> To UNESCO,I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance 
> and we mustseek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global 
> benefit and global utility. So,many thanks for putting Internet 
> Governance and the IGF in the heart of the process.
>
> -- In working foraccess to knowledge and information,
>
> -- in workingfor freedom of expression
>
> -- in working for privacy
>
> -- in working for ethics
>
> We are notjust connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are 
> connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge 
> to knowledge, men and women, we are connecting continents.We are 
> righting the wrongs of the past, consolidating the present and 
> building a viable future.
>
>
> We have a heritage.A global heritage. The Internet.
>
> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
>
> It isthe most important tool of interchange of human values
>
> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
>
> These are the basis on which UNESCOselects sites as heritage. And 
> here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.Tomorrow is my birthday. 
> And my sister told me to make a wish.I asked if I should keep my eyes 
> open or closed and she said “any way”.So I will close an eye and keep 
> one open, for security purposes.And here is my wish..
>
>
> /_That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global 
> public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and 
> that everyone can access it can use it freely._/
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/8ef77c96/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Mar  4 12:07:29 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 18:07:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Text of speech - losing remarks at
 UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1C7F3865-9438-4CC1-9777-E903984D034C@consensus.pro>

Dear Nnenna, as others have said, this is terrific; I doubt anyone of us could have said it better, though I'm sure many of us are secretly jealous as a result! :)

On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:56, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
> 
> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
> 
> Africa Regional Coordinator
> 
> The World Wide Web Foundation.
> 
> March 4, 2015
> 
>  
> Deputy Director General
> Friends and colleagues
> Onsite and online
> 
>  
>  
> My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent, Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all, we work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global Web We Want Coalition.
> 
>  
> I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from here.
> 
> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.
> 
>  
> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries. 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are working  towards access for everyone.
> 
>  
> To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.
> 
> -        - In working for  access to knowledge and information,
> 
> -        - in working  for freedom of expression
> 
> -        - in working for privacy
> 
> -        - in working for ethics
> 
> We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable future.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.
> 
> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
> 
> It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values
> 
> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
> 
> These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage
> 
>  
> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..
> 
> 
> 
> That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it  freely.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/b1e02356/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/b1e02356/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anita at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  4 13:37:22 2015
From: anita at itforchange.net (anita at itforchange.net)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:07:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
References:     <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
    <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
    <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
Message-ID: <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

I made a submission to the final draft - section 5 - suggesting that 5.1
(in the draft) read as follows:

Promote human rights based ethical reflection,research and *democratic
dialogue* on the implications of new and emerging technologies and their
potential societal impacts, *especially, for social and economic rights*

I added 2 phrases - democratic dialogue and especially, for social and
economic rights.

There was no objection to these, but the outcome document did not reflect
these.

'Democratic' was replaced by 'public', and the reference to social and
economic rights was completely missing

anita




>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the
>> opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge
>> that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have
>> been because of this.
>
>
> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of
> civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition
> has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due
> to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with
> “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during
> the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the
> International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other
> than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>
> --
> 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 ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 13:54:46 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:54:46 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>    <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>    <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
Message-ID: <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>

Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to have global significance?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of anita at itforchange.net
Sent: March 4, 2015 10:37 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

I made a submission to the final draft - section 5 - suggesting that 5.1 (in the draft) read as follows:

Promote human rights based ethical reflection,research and *democratic
dialogue* on the implications of new and emerging technologies and their potential societal impacts, *especially, for social and economic rights*

I added 2 phrases - democratic dialogue and especially, for social and economic rights.

There was no objection to these, but the outcome document did not reflect these.

'Democratic' was replaced by 'public', and the reference to social and economic rights was completely missing

anita




>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the 
>> opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and 
>> acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would 
>> otherwise have been because of this.
>
>
> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent 
> all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the 
> coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to 
> the document due to its omission to qualify references to 
> multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly 
> stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its 
> omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on 
> Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>
> --
> 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 ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR 
> fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 bavouc at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 14:00:03 2015
From: bavouc at gmail.com (Aboudem Bavou Clement Martial)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 19:00:03 +0000
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
Message-ID: <r1gd56ph2kbh9st1pa57j261.1425495603689@email.android.com>

+1 Nnenna

Sent from my Fire Phone, Powered by GENIUS ICT

On March 4, 2015, at 4:57PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action

UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma

Africa Regional Coordinator

The World Wide Web Foundation.

March 4, 2015

 

Deputy Director General
Friends and colleagues
Onsite and online

 

 

My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent, Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all, we work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global Web We Want Coalition.

 

I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from here.

From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.


Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.

 

On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries. 


And we are working  towards access for everyone.

 

To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.

-        - In working for  access to knowledge and information, 

-        - in working  for freedom of expression

-        - in working for privacy

-        - in working for ethics

We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable future.


We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values

And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization

These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage

 

Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..


That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it  freely.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/fb2685aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From norbertglakpe at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 14:01:45 2015
From: norbertglakpe at gmail.com (Norbert Komlan GLAKPE)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 19:01:45 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Text of speech - losing remarks at
 UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMVeOEWPbQBmw=Me5LWhD1N0erCwgr5bThL0h3M7ta6KEWkY6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Memorable speech - Well Done.

2015-03-04 16:56 GMT+00:00 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:

> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
>
> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
>
> Africa Regional Coordinator
>
> The World Wide Web Foundation.
>
> March 4, 2015
>
>
>
> Deputy Director General
> Friends and colleagues
> Onsite and online
>
>
>
>
>
> My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to
> say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I
> coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent,
> Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the
> Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all,
> we work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global
> Web We Want Coalition.
>
>
>
> I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The
> second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from
> here.
>
> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation
> towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as
> inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization,
> trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M
> principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder
> participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are
> key in implementing its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we
> engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.
>
>
> Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too
> large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.
>
>
>
> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the
> Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability
> Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the
> Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average
> 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
>
>
> And we are working  towards access for everyone.
>
>
>
> To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance
> and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global
> benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet
> Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.
>
> -        - In working for  access to knowledge and information,
>
> -        - in working  for freedom of expression
>
> -        - in working for privacy
>
> -        - in working for ethics
>
> We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are
> connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to
> knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting
> the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable
> future.
>
>
> We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.
>
> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
>
> It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values
>
> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
>
> These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here,
> we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage
>
>
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday.
> And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes
> open or closed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep
> one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..
>
>
> *That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global
> public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that
> everyone can access it can use it  freely.*
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/d635348b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Mar  4 14:18:43 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 06:18:43 +1100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Text of speech - losing remarks at
 UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2298186275474EC2967F74A30AB74CB8@Toshiba>

may all your birthday wishes come true, Nnenna!

From: Nnenna Nwakanma 
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 3:56 AM
To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Governance ; Edetaen Ojo 
Subject: [bestbits] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference

Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action

UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma

Africa Regional Coordinator

The World Wide Web Foundation.

March 4, 2015



Deputy Director General
Friends and colleagues
Onsite and online





My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent, Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all, we work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global Web We Want Coalition.



I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from here.

>From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.




Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.



On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries. 





And we are working  towards access for everyone.



To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.

-        - In working for  access to knowledge and information, 

-        - in working  for freedom of expression

-        - in working for privacy

-        - in working for ethics

We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable future.




We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values

And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization

These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage



Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..




That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it  freely.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/06ef56f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From chlebrum at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 14:20:35 2015
From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:20:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
Message-ID: <CANMQhZjoD7=tK85ixo0WtNitUJL7UnqYV2BR1aF5wcszuNL4WA@mail.gmail.com>

I also supported Richard' speech but the request to add 'democracy' at the
end of section 1.4 or 1.5 was rejected because it caries too term
'baggage'...

Chantal Lebrument
​Courriel: c <lebrument at open-root.eu>hlebrum at gmail.com
Mob: +33 6 8369 5460

2015-03-04 19:37 GMT+01:00 <anita at itforchange.net>:

> > On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
> I made a submission to the final draft - section 5 - suggesting that 5.1
> (in the draft) read as follows:
>
> Promote human rights based ethical reflection,research and *democratic
> dialogue* on the implications of new and emerging technologies and their
> potential societal impacts, *especially, for social and economic rights*
>
> I added 2 phrases - democratic dialogue and especially, for social and
> economic rights.
>
> There was no objection to these, but the outcome document did not reflect
> these.
>
> 'Democratic' was replaced by 'public', and the reference to social and
> economic rights was completely missing
>
> anita
>
>
>
>
> >> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the
> >> opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge
> >> that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have
> >> been because of this.
> >
> >
> > Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all
> of
> > civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition
> > has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document
> due
> > to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with
> > “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during
> > the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to
> the
> > International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other
> > than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
> >
> > --
> > 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 ::
> >
> > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> >
> > PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> > OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
> >
> > Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> > https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/772cc8d5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From glaser at cgi.br  Wed Mar  4 14:44:38 2015
From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:44:38 -0300
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F760A6.8000608@cgi.br>


Excelent Nnenna ..., congratulations ...!

Hartmut Glaser/CGI.br

====================================
On 04/03/15 13:56, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>
> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
>
> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
>
> Africa Regional Coordinator
>
> The World Wide Web Foundation.
>
> March 4, 2015
>
> Deputy Director General
> Friends and colleagues
> Onsite and online
>
> My name is Nnenna.Icome from the Internet. And I have been asked to 
> say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we 
> leave. I coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in 
> my continent, Africa. The Web Foundation isthat organization that 
> believes that the Internet is for everyone.Therefore we work on 
> affordable access to all, we work on opening up data for participation 
> and we supportthe global Web We Want Coalition.
>
> I have three things to say.The first is on the UNESCO study itself.The 
> second is on one of the issues raised.The third ison where we go from 
> here.
>
> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation 
> towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be 
> as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the 
> organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. 
> The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, 
> Multistakeholder participation) are not just important for the study, 
> but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.Soit is only 
> natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.
>
>
> Do we endorse the outcomedocument? I do.But the Civil Society is too 
> large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all 
> others.
>
> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.Just today, the 
> Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. 
> Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in 
> poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed 
> broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 
> developing countries.
>
>
> And we are working towards access for everyone.
>
> To UNESCO,I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance 
> and we mustseek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global 
> benefit and global utility. So,many thanks for putting Internet 
> Governance and the IGF in the heart of the process.
>
> -- In working foraccess to knowledge and information,
>
> -- in workingfor freedom of expression
>
> -- in working for privacy
>
> -- in working for ethics
>
> We are notjust connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are 
> connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge 
> to knowledge, men and women, we are connecting continents.We are 
> righting the wrongs of the past, consolidating the present and 
> building a viable future.
>
>
> We have a heritage.A global heritage. The Internet.
>
> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
>
> It isthe most important tool of interchange of human values
>
> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
>
> These are the basis on which UNESCOselects sites as heritage. And 
> here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.Tomorrow is my birthday. 
> And my sister told me to make a wish.I asked if I should keep my eyes 
> open or closed and she said “any way”.So I will close an eye and keep 
> one open, for security purposes.And here is my wish..
>
>
> /_That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global 
> public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and 
> that everyone can access it can use it freely._/
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/b383d70f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Mar  4 14:52:06 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 20:52:06 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
References:  <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F760A6.8000608@cgi.br>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642BEF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks Nnenna for another great speech. Access will be also one of the highest priorities for the NetMundial Initiative.

Wolfgang

 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Hartmut Richard Glaser
Gesendet: Mi 04.03.2015 20:44
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna Nwakanma; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Edetaen Ojo
Betreff: Re: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference
 

Excelent Nnenna ..., congratulations ...!

Hartmut Glaser/CGI.br

====================================
On 04/03/15 13:56, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>
> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
>
> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
>
> Africa Regional Coordinator
>
> The World Wide Web Foundation.
>
> March 4, 2015
>
> Deputy Director General
> Friends and colleagues
> Onsite and online
>
> My name is Nnenna.Icome from the Internet. And I have been asked to 
> say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we 
> leave. I coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in 
> my continent, Africa. The Web Foundation isthat organization that 
> believes that the Internet is for everyone.Therefore we work on 
> affordable access to all, we work on opening up data for participation 
> and we supportthe global Web We Want Coalition.
>
> I have three things to say.The first is on the UNESCO study itself.The 
> second is on one of the issues raised.The third ison where we go from 
> here.
>
> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO's consultation 
> towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be 
> as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the 
> organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. 
> The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, 
> Multistakeholder participation) are not just important for the study, 
> but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.Soit is only 
> natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.
>
>
> Do we endorse the outcomedocument? I do.But the Civil Society is too 
> large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all 
> others.
>
> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.Just today, the 
> Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. 
> Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in 
> poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed 
> broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 
> developing countries.
>
>
> And we are working towards access for everyone.
>
> To UNESCO,I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance 
> and we mustseek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global 
> benefit and global utility. So,many thanks for putting Internet 
> Governance and the IGF in the heart of the process.
>
> -- In working foraccess to knowledge and information,
>
> -- in workingfor freedom of expression
>
> -- in working for privacy
>
> -- in working for ethics
>
> We are notjust connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are 
> connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge 
> to knowledge, men and women, we are connecting continents.We are 
> righting the wrongs of the past, consolidating the present and 
> building a viable future.
>
>
> We have a heritage.A global heritage. The Internet.
>
> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
>
> It isthe most important tool of interchange of human values
>
> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
>
> These are the basis on which UNESCOselects sites as heritage. And 
> here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.Tomorrow is my birthday. 
> And my sister told me to make a wish.I asked if I should keep my eyes 
> open or closed and she said "any way".So I will close an eye and keep 
> one open, for security purposes.And here is my wish..
>
>
> /_That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global 
> public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and 
> that everyone can access it can use it freely._/
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Wed Mar  4 15:46:02 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:46:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
Message-ID: <F7A55A65-60C7-44BE-8838-1550B3C669F4@theglobaljournal.net>

Jeremy, Nnenna, everyone,

It is interesting to note, as Norbert did, that to express in the open, an opinion is now equating to a disruption (Jeremy seems once again to be highly disrupted with this).

I thought:
- Everybody here loved Internet for being such a disruptive modern machinery
- That "Freedom of Expression" fighters would applaud to someone expressing his opinion (and by the same token the voice of many others).
- That, at least since the NetMundial final statement, we were in agreement with the idea of a democratic multistakeholder approach. I understand that this is still not a reference.

So, once again, apart from some nice statements, one open eye, as seducing it might be,  is not enough to secure democratic debate and governance in the current muddy waters of IG.

We are still going nowhere, I am afraid.

Definitely, the fight will be more and more political. The ISF is more than ever the most needed venue for CS to catch up with its own values, convictions and fights. I am thinking of Athens, where I spent a few days lately. Definitely...

We need a democratic governance for a global common good, and we will enjoy a pluri-party dialogue. We need to break the ICANN jail (very not an open space, but a highly captured space). We need change and we need hope. We don't need fake dreams and real illusions. The Internet we want has nothing to do with the current asymmetric status quo. Has it changed so far? No. So what are these beautiful speeches for? From NetMundial to Unesco, nothing changes.


JC



Le 4 mars 2015 à 16:42, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>> 
>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.
> 
> 
> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
> 
> -- 
> 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 ::
> 
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> 
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
> 
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/5127d1fa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Mar  4 15:59:50 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:59:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [discuss] Net Neutrality in the next
 Internet
In-Reply-To: <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com>
References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com>
 <00d701d0534c$85b3d700$911b8500$@ch>
 <54F1AEEE.4040900@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAMoZbCChgze8M9TOy+2HbWtiYBZr76yPUOkMNp0tSR3MDvqd1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7p9b4mo9KSx5RKCNKVKZY3oUaSGnSXR=KGtQtsAF10N_Z+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro>
 <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net>
 <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli>
 <nk.ca@mac.com>
 <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net>
 <B979C8C3-D207-4589-B624-8C8995D56870@consensus.pro>
 <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org>
 <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <A0540259-A6AE-4335-BF7E-4CFEA2D2AC46@me.com>
 <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org>
 <CAM3-B_zV+yFaOPsrqUO1B0sN2_-eGsPJkHfo47i8+6rb6xWHiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca>
 <CAM3-B_ziXOvQCNpp+BvHrnzNES5wyFaywAqt73AcroT2x6M3nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggd8QB-HdwCqY+iSk8wLW1Q9SX0+Oa08zPy53kVrPuzKSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1YTGOQ-0004WS-Oi@igcaucus.org>

Willi,

These constructions may not look like the 
"internet" you feel you know, the IETF has 
documented, ICANN tries to dominate, and politicians think they may govern.

They have to do with (the experience we had so far) :
* 1973 Louis Pouzin's ***catenet*** theory,
* the FCC-PTT 1977 real world Robert Tréhin's "international network";
* the1978 IEN 48 experimentation which still 
tries to free itself from "NSA-compatibility".

In addition the internet technology (the same for 
its NSA constrained technological contenders) was 
not designed for the present traffic patterns. 
Even if turned to be extremely robust ad 
accomodating, this led to technological 
limitations. Edge providers try to circument them 
externally (private "backones"). NDN considers 
how to address this from inside. Net neutrality 
is poorly understood but boils down to: "let make 
all this not affect my traffic".

All these things look like "NATs": they look like 
patches to keep the system afloat.

This is why time has come to re-document the 
whole cyberspace from an applied catenet secure 
and sustainable use perspective. I think this 
much needed clarification is possible and we now 
have the tools and capacities to do it - but not the money :-) ?

This is what we are trying to initiate through 
the FLOSS Catenet Cooperative Company project.

However, I doubt that existing edge providers 
like GAFAs, or ITU and States,our ourselves  can 
do it alone. It is too complex (in the meaning - 
if this was only technical - of a large number of 
deeply intricated simplicities). In a real world 
this is quite complicate as there is a big bucnh 
of interfering interests, egos and costs.

jfc

At 03:17 03/03/2015, willi uebelherr wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Am 02/03/2015 um 06:37 p.m. schrieb Vint Cerf:
>>i hope it is clear that CDNs, colocation, and even adjacencies with access
>>ISPs reduces traffic on the Internet by placing content geographically
>>closer to the recipients who are downloading or streaming.  Google, like
>>many other sources of content, tries to make the aggregate Internet more
>>efficient by increasing connectivity to edge access providers and major
>>backbone networks.
>>
>>v
>
>Dear friends,
>
>for what we need IXP's, ISP's, monster CDN's or 
>any other private instances? This constructions 
>have nothing to do with the "InterNet". And the 
>most reduction of transport volumes we can 
>create with local server structures. Then all 
>people in our world can use her local resources.
>
>many greetings, willi
>La Paz, Bolivia
>
>
>
>
>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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 16:50:02 2015
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:50:02 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <F7A55A65-60C7-44BE-8838-1550B3C669F4@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <F7A55A65-60C7-44BE-8838-1550B3C669F4@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxg1Zeg0A3+xhZYowL7tMHcKni+eDfMx5kwbSv_iFoYzYA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> We need a democratic governance for a global common good, and we will enjoy
> a pluri-party dialogue. We need to break the ICANN jail (very not an open
> space, but a highly captured space).


Very true. However, ICANN is not captured by who you think it is captured by.

It is currently in the hands of the GAC. Who make their decisions with
no regard for international law, treaty or process.  So much for
"democratic" IG decision making.

-- 
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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Wed Mar  4 17:01:25 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 23:01:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A2DA702E-6887-4098-A1F0-71E02B31D0AB@uni-graz.at>

Dear Nenna, Congratulations to Your excellent Statement! And Happy Birthday!

Wolfgang Benedek

Am 04.03.2015 um 17:57 schrieb "Nnenna Nwakanma" <nnenna75 at gmail.com<mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>:

Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
Africa Regional Coordinator
The World Wide Web Foundation.
March 4, 2015

Deputy Director General
Friends and colleagues
Onsite and online


My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent, Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all, we work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global Web We Want Coalition.

I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from here.

From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.

Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.

On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.

And we are working  towards access for everyone.

To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.

-        - In working for  access to knowledge and information,

-        - in working  for freedom of expression

-        - in working for privacy

-        - in working for ethics
We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable future.

We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.
The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values
And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage

Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..

That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it  freely.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/be792cb8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 17:03:56 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:03:56 -0800
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642BEF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com> <54F760A6.8000608@cgi.br> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642BEF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <000c01d056c7$20dab870$62902950$@gmail.com>

Sigh, I thought the point that the issue of concern was not "access" but the
opportunity and means for
<http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1107/1027>
"effective/meaningful" use had been made in WSIS. 

 

"Access" is relatively easy, just a matter of will and money. Ensuring that
folks are able to "use" the Internet in ways that are useful and meaningful
to them, given their individual and collective priorities is a rather more
difficult and time consuming task, so it tends to be ignored when big
governments or big corps or big NGO's are tossing money at the problem.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
Sent: March 4, 2015 11:52 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Hartmut Richard Glaser;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna Nwakanma; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
Edetaen Ojo
Subject: AW: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
Connecting the Dots Conference

 

Thanks Nnenna for another great speech. Access will be also one of the
highest priorities for the NetMundial Initiative.

 

Wolfgang

 

 

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Hartmut Richard Glaser

Gesendet: Mi 04.03.2015 20:44

An:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
Nnenna Nwakanma; < <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Edetaen Ojo

Betreff: Re: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
Connecting the Dots Conference

 

Excelent Nnenna ..., congratulations ...!

 

Hartmut Glaser/CGI.br

 

====================================

On 04/03/15 13:56, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:

> 

> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action

> 

> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.

> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma

> 

> Africa Regional Coordinator

> 

> The World Wide Web Foundation.

> 

> March 4, 2015

> 

> Deputy Director General

> Friends and colleagues

> Onsite and online

> 

> My name is Nnenna.Icome from the Internet. And I have been asked to 

> say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we 

> leave. I coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in 

> my continent, Africa. The Web Foundation isthat organization that 

> believes that the Internet is for everyone.Therefore we work on 

> affordable access to all, we work on opening up data for participation 

> and we supportthe global Web We Want Coalition.

> 

> I have three things to say.The first is on the UNESCO study itself.The 

> second is on one of the issues raised.The third ison where we go from 

> here.

> 

> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO's consultation 

> towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be 

> as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the 

> organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table.

> The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, 

> Multistakeholder participation) are not just important for the study, 

> but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.Soit is only 

> natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.

> 

> 

> Do we endorse the outcomedocument? I do.But the Civil Society is too 

> large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all 

> others.

> 

> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.Just today, the 

> Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report.

> Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in 

> poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed 

> broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 

> developing countries.

> 

> 

> And we are working towards access for everyone.

> 

> To UNESCO,I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance 

> and we mustseek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global 

> benefit and global utility. So,many thanks for putting Internet 

> Governance and the IGF in the heart of the process.

> 

> -- In working foraccess to knowledge and information,

> 

> -- in workingfor freedom of expression

> 

> -- in working for privacy

> 

> -- in working for ethics

> 

> We are notjust connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are 

> connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge 

> to knowledge, men and women, we are connecting continents.We are 

> righting the wrongs of the past, consolidating the present and 

> building a viable future.

> 

> 

> We have a heritage.A global heritage. The Internet.

> 

> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

> 

> It isthe most important tool of interchange of human values

> 

> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization

> 

> These are the basis on which UNESCOselects sites as heritage. And 

> here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global 

> heritage

> 

> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.Tomorrow is my birthday. 

> And my sister told me to make a wish.I asked if I should keep my eyes 

> open or closed and she said "any way".So I will close an eye and keep 

> one open, for security purposes.And here is my wish..

> 

> 

> /_That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global 

> public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and 

> that everyone can access it can use it freely._/

> 

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>        <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance at lists.igcaucus.org

> To be removed from the list, visit:

>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

> 

> For all other list information and functions, see:

>        <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

> 

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

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/7bc86cc4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 16:53:11 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:53:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
In-Reply-To: <CAOxRbV9NxTt+_7Z7xx-o9rY=osw9ZAEQ4dj-Wf464SeuzBjApw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <nk.ca@mac.com> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <B979C8C3-D207-4589-B624-8C8995D56870@consensus.pro> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <A0540259-A6AE-4335-BF7E-4CFEA2D2AC46@me.com> <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org> <CAM3-B_zV+yFaOPsrqUO1B0sN2_-eGsPJkHfo47i8+6rb6xWHiA@mail.gmail.com> <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca> <CAM3-B_ziXOvQCNpp+BvHrnzNES5wyFaywAqt73AcroT2x6M3nQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHxHggd8QB-HdwCqY+iSk8wLW1Q9SX0+Oa08zPy53kVrPuzKSw@mail.gmail.com> <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com> <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com> <CAOxRbV9NxTt+_7Z7xx-o9rY=osw9ZAEQ4dj-Wf464SeuzBjApw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F77EC7.7000905@gmail.com>

Am 03/03/2015 um 05:14 p.m. schrieb Alejandro Pisanty:
> Willi,
>
> is there a working model of more than say five computers? what are the
> scaling factors? what capacity should each individual server, located
> somewhere out there in the sugarcane fields in Nicaragua, have in order to
> have its own copy of, say, Netflix? how many hops away is it from, say the
> National Distance University of Spain which is a valuable resource for that
> community? Are there any engineering documents available?
>
> Alejandro Pisanty


Dear Alejandro, dear friends,

I send my proposal to Netmundial / 1Net entitled "Internet, the 
inter-connection of local net-works" along with 3 contributions to the 
debate on the lists. Perhaps new members are on these lists who have not 
yet read the text.

All specific answers and the discussion you find in the archive of the list:
www.1net.org Mailing List Archive
http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/

Only the principles covered in this proposal. Not the questions of, how 
we can organize this in material form.

In this case something else comes to the foreground. The free 
technology, that is free available to all people of our planet and 
arises from the free cooperation of free people, who want to participate.

The free technology rests on "think globally, act locally" and 
"Knowledge is always world heritage". We turn not to private or public 
institutions, but only to the people directly. No matter where and how 
they live.

On this basis the good practices will emerge that are still blocked by 
focusing on capitalisable technologies. The theoretical bases of free 
technology are always universal goods. There is no rational 
justification for patent and licensing rights. These constructions are 
organized robbery.

But the material basis to realize this transport system for digital data 
in packet form generally arise locally. This are the local technical 
infrastructure in order to produce the technical components. Thus, our 
InterNet arises as a result of the interconnection of our local and 
autonomous networks.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 01:00:13 -0600
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: 1net discuss <discuss at 1net.org>

Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works

Dear friends,

from the final document of NetMundial we can see, that this organization 
has no interest to strongly support the self-organization of the people 
for their global communication systems. Rather, institutions are 
installed to continue the principles of monopolization and representation.

Now I want to submit my proposal for a real Internet in this discussion
group.

1) The local networks

The Internet is nothing more then the connection of local, independent
networks. They have at least one server, which is connected to the local 
router and this router connects to the adjacent networks.

These local networks have a maximum of sovereignity and independenence,
because they maintain all the necessary resources and functions locally. 
These local networks are organized by the local people themselves.

2) The inter-connection of local net-works

The Internet rests on three levels.

a) connection of the adjacent local networks
b) the regional network of regional centers
c) the global network of regional centers

The technology is based primarily on directed microwave radio links. The 
components are manufactured locally or regionally.

All types of data are transported. Text, graphics and speech. This
eliminates all separate instances for the data transport.

The transport capacities are symmetric in principle. Thus, each client
can themselves act as a server.

3) The IP address

The IP address is derived from the geographical position in the world
coordinate system. We use 64-bit for global and 64-bit for local
address. Because the world coordinate system WK84 is distributed
asymmetrically, we should strive for a symmetrical system of
coordinates. Maybe it already exists.

The routing (geo-routing) is based on the destination address of the
packet relative to the position of the router. From the distance and the 
angle wc can easy make the decisions.

This eliminates all institutions, which deal with the management of
number spaces and routing. There is no Internet governance more. It is
not necessary.

Conclusions

This concept rests on the responsibility to all people on our planet.
Only if they can operate at a most independently locally or regionally
level, our global communication system can arise. People are important
and not the institutions.

It also follows, that we have to manufacture the hardware components
local and regional self. Any form of incapacitation of people by private 
or public institutions is terminated. But this is only possible if we 
determine the technology itself and organize itself. We do this
according to the principle: Think globally, act locally.

many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr
Quetzaltenango, Guatemala



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 22:37:43 -0600
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: 1net discuss <discuss at 1net.org>

Dear friends,

I am very grateful for the constructive responses. In particular, the
critical questions are important. They force us to organize our thinking 
and to substantiate our views.

In this response, I will deal only with the philosophical basis for my
proposal. Some answers are originated from a different orientation. In a 
second response I want to discuss some technical aspects that are
general in nature. Special reviews and questions I want to answer
specifically, as far as I am able.

The background

We can distinguish two extremal poles.
a) we support the desire from all people to a free communication
b) we use the communication requirements in order to realize our own
interests.

To a) I stand and many members of this list.

To b) stay all those for which the current structures and organizations
are important. Be it to stabilize their jobs or to secure their
livelihood in any other form. But it is also important to organize
governance and to try anything that the people in the regions can not
organize independently. And therefore are not in a position to shape
their communication system itself. As part of the many actors worldwide.

As in all questions of constructive design also flow into our principles 
of the design of our communication systems our philosophical
orientations and ultimately determine our methods. We always have to
deal with limitations in the technical possibilities. But from the
contradiction between target and condition arise the driving forces.

This also applies to those for which the needs for communication are
only objects for their money-oriented actions.

In general I formulate the following development principles:
a) massively decentralized
b) massively parallel
c) massively redundant

  From that directly follows that our global communication system rests
on independent local networks. It also follows that the people in the
regions concerned in parallel with the development of technical
components that they need for their communication systems. And it also
follows that the capacity should be well above the maximum demand.

The current restrictions are primarily the monopolization of knowledge
and a specific concentration of technical infrastructures. But these
restrictions have no inherent legitimacy. They are the result of
constructive design.

Where the boundaries lie for distributed and parallel development of the 
necessary technical components, we do not know. But we know that
diversity is an essential prerequisite for a strong development.

We are inevitably confronted with the private appropriation of human
knowledge. This is not a problem for me, because for me knowledge is
always world heritage. This eliminates all the justifications for legal
systems to patents and licenses. This is because basically our
individual knowledge rests on the knowledge of our ancestors and
contemporaries.

Because not the needs of the people to free communication are the
foundation in the technical development of components for communications 
systems, but the interests of capital utilization, there are no 
reasonable technological systems. Therefore, we can never make the 
present state of the technology to the basis of our discussion.

Communication is always bidirectional. It also follows that we consider
in our technical terminology the client and server as a unit. In our
direct verbal communication, we also do this. Technically that's not a
problem.

If we treat our connection paths for data transport such as public
roads, which everyone can use, then we immediately see the massive
limitations. Again, there is no technical reason. Always the people in
the local regions make their paths and trails usable for guests.

Communication takes place primarily locally and regionally. In families, 
between friends and colleagues. Therefore, it is natural to organize our 
technical communication systems locally and regionally. This eliminates 
much of the meaningless data transports.

I will summarize it briefly. We focus on the needs. We decentralize and
parallelize our activities for the construction of the components for
our global communication systems. We cooperate worldwide. We help each
other worldwide. We can do this because we have the same needs for a
free communication worldwide.

Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr
Quetzaltenango, Guatemala



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
Datum: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:41:17 -0600
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: 1net discuss <discuss at 1net.org>

Dear friends,

for the delay in my second reply I beg your pardon. In this response, I
will discuss some basic technical issues that were discussed in some
answers.

1) The local responsibility for the whole.

In money-oriented, capitalist environments there is no responsibility
for the whole. Only the quantum of money-flows are crucial. The fact
that this discussion is about communication is for that actors secondary.

In user-oriented environments, the whole is always the basis for the
individual. The communication requires the action of at least two
partners. From the interest of a free and unfettered communication for
ourselves necessarily follows the interest in free and unfettered
communication for the other.

2) Geographical or virtual location.

There is no virtual locality. Location is always defined geographically. 
Every person may define their own terminology. Whether they however can 
enter into a communication depends on the willingness of others.

  From the clear determination of a locality follows the clear
determination of the address of a location. It is the geographical
location. And this is only necessary to transport a data packet as
desired from one location to another.

3) Multicasting

With unique addresses no multicasting is possible. It is not the task of 
a transport system for data packets to multiply them. This task will
always have the transmitter.

However, it is technically very easy to activate in regional and local
node dynamic distribution server, which then multiply a package for
distribution. One example is mail distribution or streaming server.

4) Transport types.

There are only 2 types of transportation. Asynchronous and synchronous.
Due to the time requirements of synchronous packets this are preferred.
They are usually smaller. They are like kids who aspire between the legs 
of the adults to the front. Or even like dogs, they will always find a 
way. Even with a large storage of adults.

Within the synchronous packets, we distinguish those for emergency
calls, which are always given preferential treatment. All others have to 
wait.

5) Server instances

We do not distinguish between specific clients or servers. Each node can 
always be both. If two communication partners have the functionality for 
client and server, the packets flow directly from one partner to the 
other. Between are just transport nodes. But these are only interested 
on the IP header. The content remains closed as in a letter.

  From this symmetry of the operators, the requirement for symmetry of
the transport capacity directly follows. And since each local network
also has a central server node, all those they do not wish to maintain
her own server can outsource their requirements. Because the server
management is not a major technical problem, most end nodes in the
network will evolve to Client/Server instances.

Central server structures such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail,
Yahoo and any else will dissolve. They are unnecessary. The data remain
decentralized, as they always are. How we make visible the decentralized 
distributed data on our client, it is entirely another topic.

6) backbones and ISP's.

Such designs are not necessary for us, because they are technically not
required. In the discussion "African take on Net Neutrality" we can see
with what nonsense people play, because they can not construct her
network. They are fence-sitters that are not allowed to go inside. They
have to stay before the fence and can only use a few doors.

7) Transport technologies

In my proposal I pointed out that today's technical limitations can
never be the basis for this discussion. What methods we use has little
to do with the discussion on principles. It is primarily a question of
rational knowledge. It remains free to continue today's nonsense in the
future.

We can look at the technologies for data transport as a global community 
task. This corresponds to their real content for a global and free 
communication system, in which all people in our small world want to be 
involved. Or at least most of them.

8) Mobile communication partner.

Each mobile communication device contacts over a local access point to
the global communication system. And this will not change because there
is a physical constraint for it. Thus, each mobile communications
partner have the global address of the local access point.

Always the same applies to moving equipment. We disconnect and make a
new connection, or vice versa. A simple method.

9) The analogy to the street.

Our transport system for data packets is comparable to the transport
systems on the road. There are community responsibilities because they
are important for communities.

10) State, private companies and Comunas.

In my design, I am guided for the local communities, the Comunas. States 
and private companies are not important, because they are not really 
necessary. Communication always takes place between people and not 
between virtual, not real structures.

Local communities realy exist. States and companies exist only in the
imagination. That's why I do not concern myself with it.

The need for worldwide communication exists in reality. It is a basic
need of people to contact each other, share ideas and experiences. So,
if we omit the foreign interests, eliminate their material bases by
making them superfluous, our action spaces are wide open and freely
accessible to go inside.

A summary.

In our considerations we need to make the focus to that what we want to
achieve. We disolve all dogmas. If we want a world-wide communication
for all people, then we should also make this the subject of our
thinking. With side scenes, we need not concern ourselves.

Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr
Jinotepe, Nicaragua



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
Datum: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:18:34 -0600
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: discuss at 1net.org <discuss at 1net.org>

Dear friends,

this discussion now focuses on the question:

Direct or indirect addressing in the Internet?

But this question we can answer only if we understand the requirements
of the data packet transport properly.

The transport of data packets is a geographical task because origin and
destination in communication are at different geographical locations.
Otherwise, these questions would not arise. It makes no sense to apply
the methods of internal addressing of CPU's, because it is a completely
different tasks in a completely different environment.

When we realize what to do in order to transport data packets and what
information is necessary so that the packets even reach their goal, then 
it becomes very easy.

Andrew has taken leave with great speech from this discussion.

He wrote:
"Today, on the actual Internet we have, if I am the registrant of an IP
address range and I move my data centre from one location to another, I
make a new announcement and everyone can find me automatically".

Because he does not understand the content of DNS processes, he also
does not know what lies behind the facade of his "announcement". But he
acts as if he would be familiar.

Meanwhile, we have several examples of supposed experts on this list who 
do not understand the contents of that of which they speak.

JFC Morfin (Jefsey) has disappointed me a little. He knows very well the 
history of the Internet, he knows many names. But is this sufficient? If 
we do not develop our own criteria, then it is better that we go to the 
church. Like small child we can run behind the religious dogmas. Luis 
Pouzin put it clearly in his texts to the catenet. Never stand the 
physical requirements in the foreground. At that time the project was 
stopped because the telecommunication companies of the different state 
were afraid of a possible loss of their monopoly position. They prefer 
the X25 protocol.

The main forces for indirect addressing in the Internet are government
intelligence agencies and the military authorities; public or private.
And it seems like their needs were always the most important in the last 
40-50 years. There are not helpful many names of famous people.

Luis Pouzin was also fixed to the indirect addressing. Following of that 
was developed such illustrious names such as "Virtual Geo Network". Each 
person can build such a virtual network if they want. Even virtual 
communities of any kind. But we never allowed to make this nonsense to 
the base.

The same is true for the pseudo-model OSI. Each person can think up to
any models. But models always remain just perceptions. They arise from
the attempt to outline the reality. But the determining factor is the
reality itself and not the idea of reality.

I can only hope that something more consciousness arises in this circle
about the reality. But based on my experience in so many threads in this 
list I have big doubts. At least until the more passive reader
interfere. Then could also Luis Pouzin participate in the discussion.

The geo-routing come today through the backdoor in again. In dynamic
meshnets of mobile devices without local access points, the geo-routing
has proven to be advantageous. Also a military line of research.

Even if that is not the issue here. We should think about, how we can
disolve all kinds of military worldwide. Then we have a lot less
problems in our lives. And not only in the internet.

Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr
Jinotepe, Nicaragua


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

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Mar  4 17:08:50 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 23:08:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642BEF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com> <54F760A6.8000608@cgi.br> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642BEF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <B074B99E-2E55-4640-A4AB-4B1CF6F7E9C6@consensus.pro>

Focussing on that would be an excellent thing for NMI to do - it is something that unquestionably needs a greater focus.

On 4 Mar 2015, at 20:52, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Access will be also one of the highest priorities for the NetMundial Initiative.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150304/f2ec0374/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 19:12:33 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:12:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Text of speech - losing remarks at
 UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9zic1AFb6udq_ypKSbCqv3SLhksxshL3UGgEs9SbwUSA@mail.gmail.com>

So, Nnenna, did you really close one eye and keep the other open? Can't
believe this till I see the picture ;)
Anyway, if it were only me you'd have your birthday wish wholly fulfilled
by tomorrow.
Well done!

mc

=====================================
Mawaki Chango, PhD
Founder
DIGILEXIS
http://www.digilexis.com
m.chango at digilexis.com | *kichango at gmail.com <kichango at gmail.com>*
Twitter: @digilexis & @prodigilexis
Mob. +225 57 55 57 53 | +225 44 48 77 64
Skype: digilexis
=====================================

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
>
> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
>
> Africa Regional Coordinator
>
> The World Wide Web Foundation.
>
> March 4, 2015
>
>
>
> Deputy Director General
> Friends and colleagues
> Onsite and online
>
>
>
>
>
> My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to
> say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I
> coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent,
> Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the
> Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all,
> we work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global
> Web We Want Coalition.
>
>
>
> I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The
> second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from
> here.
>
> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO's consultation
> towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as
> inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization,
> trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M
> principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder
> participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are
> key in implementing its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we
> engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.
>
>
> Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too
> large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.
>
>
>
> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the
> Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability
> Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the
> Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average
> 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
>
>
> And we are working  towards access for everyone.
>
>
>
> To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance
> and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global
> benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet
> Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.
>
> -        - In working for  access to knowledge and information,
>
> -        - in working  for freedom of expression
>
> -        - in working for privacy
>
> -        - in working for ethics
>
> We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are
> connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to
> knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting
> the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable
> future.
>
>
> We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.
>
> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
>
> It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values
>
> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
>
> These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here,
> we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage
>
>
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday.
> And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes
> open or closed and she said "any way".  So I will close an eye and keep
> one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..
>
>
> *That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global
> public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that
> everyone can access it can use it  freely.*
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/f1603c7c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Mar  4 20:11:11 2015
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 06:11:11 +0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Text of speech - losing remarks at
 UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9zic1AFb6udq_ypKSbCqv3SLhksxshL3UGgEs9SbwUSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v9zic1AFb6udq_ypKSbCqv3SLhksxshL3UGgEs9SbwUSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtPmGHKPQweu5_REg0+WHZwfEQxLUpdCQKszOqNAehBCmw@mail.gmail.com>

Wonderful Nnenna! and a very Happy Birthday. Better keep both eyes open ;)

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, Nnenna, did you really close one eye and keep the other open? Can't
> believe this till I see the picture ;)
> Anyway, if it were only me you'd have your birthday wish wholly fulfilled by
> tomorrow.
> Well done!
>
> mc
>
> =====================================
> 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 Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
>>
>> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
>> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
>>
>> Africa Regional Coordinator
>>
>> The World Wide Web Foundation.
>>
>> March 4, 2015
>>
>>
>>
>> Deputy Director General
>> Friends and colleagues
>> Onsite and online
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to
>> say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I
>> coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent,
>> Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the
>> Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all, we
>> work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global Web We
>> Want Coalition.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The
>> second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from
>> here.
>>
>> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation
>> towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as
>> inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization,
>> trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M
>> principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder
>> participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are key
>> in implementing its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we engage
>> as civil society, during, now and going forward.
>>
>>
>> Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too
>> large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the
>> Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report.
>> Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty
>> cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection
>> costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
>>
>>
>> And we are working  towards access for everyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance
>> and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global
>> benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet
>> Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.
>>
>> -        - In working for  access to knowledge and information,
>>
>> -        - in working  for freedom of expression
>>
>> -        - in working for privacy
>>
>> -        - in working for ethics
>>
>> We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are
>> connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to
>> knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting
>> the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable
>> future.
>>
>>
>> We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.
>>
>> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
>>
>> It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values
>>
>> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
>>
>> These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here,
>> we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage
>>
>>
>>
>> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday.
>> And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes
>> open or closed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep one
>> open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..
>>
>>
>> That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global public
>> good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone
>> can access it can use it  freely.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Public Policy Analyst
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  4 20:24:04 2015
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 06:54:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642BEF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com> <54F760A6.8000608@cgi.br> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642BEF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <54F7B034.4010907@ITforChange.net>

On Thursday 05 March 2015 01:22 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Thanks Nnenna for another great speech. Access will be also one of the highest priorities for the NetMundial Initiative.
>
> Wolfgang

I remember as long as a decade ago, 'access' was recognized as a ploy by 
the powerful to keep the rest out of issues of governance and power.

We are now talking the language of 'OCCUPY' (it is the  'Internet of the 
peoples') and  not of access (how  the elite can trickle down the 
goodies in the way they want)

But no surprises here.

Guru

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed Mar  4 20:27:14 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>

On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to have global significance?


With pleasure.  This is why:

http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  4 22:44:54 2015
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:14:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <20150304174646.31374cab@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <20150304174646.31374cab@quill>
Message-ID: <54F7D136.3010100@ITforChange.net>

It seems paradoxical that an insistence on the word 'democratic' should 
be seen as disruptive.
Or perhaps there is a deeper message here for the NMIs and the ICANNS 
and their friends - that  democracy indeed is disruptive
Guru

On Wednesday 04 March 2015 10:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:42:12 +0100
> Jeremy Malcolm<jmalcolm at eff.org>  wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm<jmalcolm at eff.org>  wrote:
>>
>> Richard Hill on behalf of the
>> coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to
>> the document due to its omission to qualify references to
>> multi-stakeholderism with “democratic”
> Since when does a formal objection in the context of a supposedly
> consensus based process constitute having "disrupted the meeting"???
>
>> (which he incorrectly stated
>> was not objected to during the last drafting session),
> Who objected during the last drafting session, and on what basis?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>
>> and its
>> omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on
>> Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the
>> document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/faabdda8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Mar  5 00:10:27 2015
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:10:27 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F7D136.3010100@ITforChange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <20150304174646.31374cab@quill> <54F7D136.3010100@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxg6y-m2F0bB3vKvu=z1fTy4JL46kq1QO4-Tw94VRv0Mpg@mail.gmail.com>

From a distance, what seems to have been disruptive is JNCs
intervention AFTER consensus had been reached.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Guru <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> It seems paradoxical that an insistence on the word 'democratic' should be
> seen as disruptive.
> Or perhaps there is a deeper message here for the NMIs and the ICANNS and
> their friends - that  democracy indeed is disruptive
> Guru
>
>
> On Wednesday 04 March 2015 10:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:42:12 +0100
> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
> Richard Hill on behalf of the
> coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to
> the document due to its omission to qualify references to
> multi-stakeholderism with “democratic”
>
> Since when does a formal objection in the context of a supposedly
> consensus based process constitute having "disrupted the meeting"???
>
> (which he incorrectly stated
> was not objected to during the last drafting session),
>
> Who objected during the last drafting session, and on what basis?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>
> and its
> omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on
> Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the
> document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 daveb at dslprime.com  Thu Mar  5 01:18:04 2015
From: daveb at dslprime.com (Dave Burstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 01:18:04 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy

I did go to your site and admit to being puzzled by the comments.

Neither Richard Hill, yourself nor the U.S. government can redefine the
meaning of terms like "democracy," "social rights" and "economic rights."
If you think that Richard's proposals to achieve "democracy" are wrong,
you're free to say so. Many of us thought the name "German Democratic
Republic" absurd. East Germany was nothing like my idea of democracy. That
didn't negate the meaning of the word "democracy." Just because an
authoritarian state misuses the term doesn't make the idea invalid.

There are many ways to come closer to democracy beyond the statist
suggestions you attribute to the people you disagree with here. For
example, Net Mundial created an initial board with 3 Africans. 3 Asians, 3
Latin Americans, 3 North Americans and Three Europeans, as well as a few
self-appointed initiators.  That's far from representative democracy but
it's much closer than most other groups making rules for the Internet.

We all know a very heavy majority of the decisionmakers in the "internet
governance" groups are from America and her allies. The majority of
Internet users are not; China already has twice the INternet users as the
U.S. or Europe. Africa will have more Internet users than the U.S. by
~2017. These folks have mostly been excluded

   No matter how dedicated the individuals are, a system that virtually
locks out the majority of Internet users will be very hard to sustain. So I
strongly support "democracy" because without more representative bodies I
believe the system will fail.

   Democracy, and economic justice, are good things.

Dave Burstein

p.s. Your site registration has a captcha but the picture doesn't show.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and economic
> rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to have global
> significance?
>
>
> With pleasure.  This is why:
>
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>
> --
> 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 ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Editor, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/343f5cb2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr  Thu Mar  5 01:58:54 2015
From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 06:58:54 +0000
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1425538734.22568.YahooMailBasic@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

Merci Nnenna, 

Très bon discours ! Comme d'habitude !

Félicitations.

NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY

ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT
Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président


Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général


Skype : jpnkurunziz

Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza
Tel : +257 79 981459

--------------------------------------------
En date de : Mer 4.3.15, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> a écrit :

 Objet: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference
 À: "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, "Governance" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "Edetaen Ojo" <edetaen at gmail.com>
 Date: Mercredi 4 mars 2015, 18h56
 
 
 
 Connecting
 the Dots: Options for Future
 Action
 
 UNESCO
 headquarters, Paris, France.
 
 Closing Remarks by Nnenna
 Nwakanma
 
 Africa
 Regional Coordinator
 
 The World
 Wide Web Foundation.
 
 March 4,
 2015
 
  
 
 Deputy
 Director General
 
 Friends and colleagues
 
 Onsite and online
 
  
 
  
 
 My name is
 Nnenna.  I  come from the
 Internet. And I have been asked
 to say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society,
 before we leave. I
 coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation
 in my continent,
 Africa. The Web Foundation is  that
 organization
 that believes that the Internet is for everyone. 
 Therefore we work on affordable access to
 all, we work on opening up data for participation and
  we support 
 the global Web We Want
 Coalition.
 
  
 
 I have three
 things to say.  The first is on the
 UNESCO study itself.  The second is on
 one of the issues raised.  The third
 is  on where we go from here.
 
 
 
 From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s
 consultation towards the
 study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as
 inclusive as could
 be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization,
 trust in its capacity
 to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open,
 Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not
 just important for
 the study, but they also are key in implementing its
 recommendations.  So  it
 is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now
 and going forward.
 
 
 Do we endorse the
 outcome  document? I do.  But
 the Civil Society is too large a
 constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all
 others.
 
  
 
 On the issues, I will
 settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just
 today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the
 Affordability report. Affordability
 Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty
 cannot access the
 Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection
 costs on average 40%
 of monthly income across 51 developing countries. 
 
 
 
 And we are working
  towards access for
 everyone.
 
  
 
 To UNESCO, 
 I
 must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance
 and we must  seek at all times, to manage it
 for global
 interest, global benefit and global utility.
  So, 
 many thanks for putting Internet Governance
  and the IGF in the heart of the
 process.
 
 -       
 -
 In working for 
 access to knowledge and information,
 
 
 -       
 -
 in working  for freedom of
 expression
 
 -       
 -
 in working for
 privacy
 
 -       
 -
 in working for
 ethics
 
 We are not  
 just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We
 are connecting
 cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge
 to knowledge,  men and women, we are
 connecting
 continents.  We are righting the wrongs
 of the past,  consolidating the present
 and  building a viable
 future.
 
 
 We have a
 heritage. 
 A global heritage.  The
 Internet.
 
 The Internet
 represents a masterpiece of human creative
 genius
 
 It is  the most
 important  tool of interchange of human
 values
 
 And an
 exceptional testimony to our common
 civilization
 
 These are
 the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites
 as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The
 Internet is our global
 heritage
 
  
 
 Ladies and
 gentlemen, friends here and online. 
 Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to
 make a wish.   I
 asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said
 “any way”.  So I will close an eye and
 keep one open, for
 security purposes.  And here is my
 wish..
 
 
 That the open Internet, the open
 web,
 will be established as global public good and a basic right
 of all men and
 women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it
  freely.
 
 
 -----La pièce jointe associée suit-----
 
 ____________________________________________________________
 You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
 To be removed from the list, visit:
      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
 
 For all other list information and functions, see:
      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
 To edit your 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  Thu Mar  5 02:49:53 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:49:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxg6y-m2F0bB3vKvu=z1fTy4JL46kq1QO4-Tw94VRv0Mpg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<20150304174646.31374cab@quill>
	<54F7D136.3010100@ITforChange.net>
	<CACAaNxg6y-m2F0bB3vKvu=z1fTy4JL46kq1QO4-Tw94VRv0Mpg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150305084953.72714b45@quill>

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:10:27 -0500
McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> From a distance, what seems to have been disruptive is JNCs
> intervention AFTER consensus had been reached.

The claim "consensus had been reached" is not true.

Greetings,
Norbert


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  5 03:13:40 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:13:40 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
Message-ID: <01ea01d0571c$4aa87840$dff968c0$@gmail.com>

Wow Jeremy you sound really perturbed (disturbed?).  Did Richard "disrupt" a
stitch up that you and your US and UK government/corporate funded mates had
worked out at one of your 5 star retreats.  And what/when exactly did all
you folks decide to abandon democracy in favour of whatever
multistakeholderism flavour of the day you happen to be peddling.

 

For those folks who couldn't get through your turgid prose and convoluted
semi-arguments let me summarize... "we good folks believe in Motherhood,
apple pie, the American way and oh yes, multistakeholderism (sorry we don't
really have a definition for it but we want to add it to the sacred Pantheon
anyway); they, the bad guys, the JNC believe in the dark side, Darth Vader
and oh yes, democracy...

 

Or equally your tweet...

 

: Jeremy Malcolm @qirtaiba  .  17 hours ago

:

: Chris Painter from USG supports my observation that proposal to add

: "democratic" to "multi-stakeholder" has baggage to it #netstudy

 

 

But it is good that you and your mates are finally going public on this, so
maybe we should ask for a show of hands... Who here is prepared to follow
Jeremy and the USG in publicly expressing the position that they have
decided to abandon democracy in favour of oligarchy err
multistakeholderism/governance by the 1%.

 

EFF? Access? APC? UNESCO?  ISOC? South Africa? Brazil? France?

 

Don't be shy...

                                           

M

 

-----Original Message-----                                      
From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] 
Sent: March 4, 2015 5:27 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Cc: anita at itforchange.net; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and economic
rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to have global
significance?

 

 

With pleasure.  This is why:

 

 
<http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-de
mocracy-against-ordinary-internet-users>
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-dem
ocracy-against-ordinary-internet-users

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

 <https://eff.org> https://eff.org

 <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

Public key:  <https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt>
https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

 

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR
fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

 

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:

 <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/6d3a2934/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Thu Mar  5 03:35:04 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:35:04 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>


On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:39 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> .The fact that some  'civil society' persons sided with US and its allies (who as the key power-holders in the global IG realm have their obvious reasons) to do so indeed makes it a sad day for public interest advocacy.... parminder

	I really find some civil society persons siding with Russia and the KSA on some issues to be a bigger long term concern for support of democracy within civil society, but perhaps that is just me.

	Regards

		David
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
>> Sent: March 4, 2015 7:42 AM
>> To: Jeremy Malcolm
>> Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna Nwakanma;<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>> 
>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.
>> 
>> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>> 
>> --
>> 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 ::
>> 
>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>> 
>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>> 
>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/21fea0dc/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/21fea0dc/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Thu Mar  5 03:45:23 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:45:23 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>,<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577FA5@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Hi Jeremy,

My issues with "multistakeholderism" origins from my ignorance. When I first started to look into it, I didn't understand what it was, only that it was controversial. Limited Bandwidth didn't allow anyone in EDRi to explain who had recommended it as point 9 in the wepromise campaign[1], and why it was prioritized before point 10 on Free Software. As a member of two of EDRi's member organisations, and actively involved as an EFF staffer in the process when EFF became a member of EDRi, I have been puzzled ever since.

Your text helps a bit, but it would be Humpty Dumpty if the word "democratic" would be the ultimate trojan horse that kills all the kittens on the internet.

I am working in an institution that uses the word "democratic" a lot. That's why I was quite sure the amendment changing "the multistakeholder model of internet governance" to "a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of internet governance" would be appreciated as a good compromise, as the EP normally, and with ease, votes on unknowns like "square circles" and "parallel import allowed by the rightholder".

Personally, I am convinced that all MEP candidates who signed up to the wepromise campaign would also have signed, happily, the following:

I will defend a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of internet governance
I will support free, open, bottom-up, and multi-stakeholder models of coordinating the Internet resources and standards - names, numbers, addresses etc. I will support measures which seek to ensure the capacity of representative civil society to participate in multi-stakeholder forums. I will oppose any attempts by corporate, governmental or intergovernmental agencies to take control of Internet governance.

So I guess I still don't get it.

I think Popper once said you should avoid discussions on definitions. They tend to turn into viciously circular infinite regressions. That said, we have problems with lots of concepts and phrases like for example "Everyone should have the same rights online as offline". Rights implies enforcement, enforcement requires a judiciary, judiciary needs a legislator, legislator needs... democratic accountability.

Check out CJEU Opinion 2/13[1]. It's about EU acceding the ECHR. If that won't happen in a way that satisfies the CJEU, I think the EU will have a constitutional melt down.

And with that, a brand new operational meaning of "democracy" (never mind the definition).

May I share a song on the subject[3]?

Best regards.

//Erik


[1] https://www.wepromise.eu/en/page/charter
[2] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-2/13
[3] http://www.ffii.se/erik/misc/PowerToTheParliament.mp3



________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jmalcolm at eff.org]
Sent: Thursday 5 March 2015 02:27
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Cc: anita at itforchange.net; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to have global significance?


With pleasure.  This is why:

http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users

--
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/c81d2202/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Thu Mar  5 03:54:35 2015
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:54:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <1AB694D9-95C2-41D3-9940-7CBAF776D8BB@gmail.com>

Love your "some civil society persons". 
Love you 'some issues" as well.
Perhaps it is just "some you".
I am sure everyone will enjoy your  manière de faire


JNC, contrary to the people who are funded by big US money, are accepting no money from either the US government or corps or status-quo institutions such as ICANN or any other foreign governments or corporations. It would be so interesting to disclose the funding powers behind the multistakholderist faction: of course, if you wish us to be of some help with this, we are ready to provide you with a detailed list of the lucky funded folks in our CS world. Shall we go into that? Ready?

US money, British money, Swedish money ... let's follow the money for once. We will all learn a lot and some will have to stop pretending being true CS.

Who pays for the musicians...

JC


Le 5 mars 2015 à 09:35, David Cake a écrit :

> 
> On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:39 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> .The fact that some  'civil society' persons sided with US and its allies (who as the key power-holders in the global IG realm have their obvious reasons) to do so indeed makes it a sad day for public interest advocacy.... parminder 
> 
> 	I really find some civil society persons siding with Russia and the KSA on some issues to be a bigger long term concern for support of democracy within civil society, but perhaps that is just me. 
> 	
> 	Regards
> 
> 		David
>>>  
>>> M
>>>  
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Sent: March 4, 2015 7:42 AM
>>> To: Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna Nwakanma;<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>  
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>  
>>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.
>>>  
>>> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>> 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 ::
>>>  
>>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>>>  
>>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>>>  
>>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/0964f0d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  5 04:21:25 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:51:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 05 March 2015 02:05 PM, David Cake wrote:
>
> On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:39 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> .The fact that some  'civil society' persons sided with US and its 
>> allies (who as the key power-holders in the global IG realm have 
>> their obvious reasons) to do so indeed makes it a sad day for public 
>> interest advocacy.... parminder
>
> I really find some civil society persons siding with Russia and the 
> KSA on some issues to be a bigger long term concern for support of 
> democracy within civil society, but perhaps that is just me.

David, I am more that ready for an honest debate, but here you are 
cutting some part of an email and making an unconnected case out of it. 
The main point in my email was not 'siding with US' but 'siding with US 
to resist inclusion of 'democracy' in the UNESCO document', which I 
indeed consider nothing less than scandalous . Now, on the 'democracy' 
part, if you have any views please share them, and if any questions, I 
am happy to answer.

I do not know what and whom you refer to in talking about siding with 
Russia (will you like to be explicit). Meanwhile, I will greatly protest 
anyone siding with Russia to condone, say violence against journalists, 
or arbitrarily shutting down websites - both of which happen a lot in 
Russia. However, Id be happy to side with Russia to resist US and its 
corporation's hegemony over the global Internet. Similarly, I'd very 
happily side with US on spreading globally its new found enthusiasm for 
net neutrality and community broadband as national level best practices.

parminder
> Regards
>
> David
>>> M
>>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net]*On 
>>> Behalf Of*Jeremy Malcolm
>>> *Sent:*March 4, 2015 7:42 AM
>>> *To:*Jeremy Malcolm
>>> *Cc:*Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna 
>>> Nwakanma;<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>> *Subject:*Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org 
>>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the
>>>     opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and
>>>     acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it
>>>     would otherwise have been because of this.
>>>
>>> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent 
>>> all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the 
>>> coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to 
>>> the document due to its omission to qualify references to 
>>> multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated 
>>> was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its 
>>> omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on 
>>> Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the 
>>> document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>>> -- 
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>> Public key:https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as 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 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/0e22b72c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com  Thu Mar  5 04:26:47 2015
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:26:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPcSPKWykFR40x+TOgca2zjy+BhALgL0e-10DzVdx4O9gNKvEg@mail.gmail.com>

hello Nnenna,

I strongly support your argument when we have to consider the Internet as a
public good. It is the fruit of a civilization that has become a universal
product.

I also strongly support when you allude to accessibility. In some
countries, the internet is a real obstacle course: poor access to
electricity, untimely and repeated failure of electrical power, poor
quality of internet service ... and all this in a legislative environnment
poorly adapted with texts legal and regulatory obsolete, a non respected
regulator, constant pressure policy makers, planned exclusion of other
stakeholders (private sector and civil society), a notorious refusal to
dialogue on joint management of the Internet ... A real digital jungle.

Without all these technical and legislative provisions, which are
prerequisites, how to ensure that freedom of expression is respected? How
to have information access as quickly as possible in real time? How to
exchange and share knowledge as quickly as possible in real time?Without a
concerted policy on broadband?

The internet, as you say so Nnenna, is the result of the creative genius of
man, a treasure of civilization in the third millennium.

It can be considered a world heritage. In this context, it is essential
that the issue of governance continues to be at the heart of trade mainly
within the national platforms of national IGF.

National IGF should also be considered as the foundation of the Global IGF
pyramid.

2015-03-04 17:56 GMT+01:00 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:

> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
>
> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
>
> Africa Regional Coordinator
>
> The World Wide Web Foundation.
>
> March 4, 2015
>
>
>
> Deputy Director General
> Friends and colleagues
> Onsite and online
>
>
>
>
>
> My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to
> say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I
> coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent,
> Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the
> Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all,
> we work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global
> Web We Want Coalition.
>
>
>
> I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The
> second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from
> here.
>
> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation
> towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as
> inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization,
> trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M
> principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder
> participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are
> key in implementing its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we
> engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.
>
>
> Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too
> large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.
>
>
>
> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the
> Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability
> Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the
> Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average
> 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
>
>
> And we are working  towards access for everyone.
>
>
>
> To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance
> and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global
> benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet
> Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.
>
> -        - In working for  access to knowledge and information,
>
> -        - in working  for freedom of expression
>
> -        - in working for privacy
>
> -        - in working for ethics
>
> We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are
> connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to
> knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting
> the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable
> future.
>
>
> We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.
>
> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
>
> It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values
>
> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
>
> These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here,
> we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage
>
>
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday.
> And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes
> open or closed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep
> one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..
>
>
> *That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global
> public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that
> everyone can access it can use it  freely.*
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/038e856b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Thu Mar  5 04:31:03 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:31:03 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <1AB694D9-95C2-41D3-9940-7CBAF776D8BB@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <1AB694D9-95C2-41D3-9940-7CBAF776D8BB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C94456FD-F5A8-45FA-AEC3-21ADAE671234@difference.com.au>


On 5 Mar 2015, at 4:54 pm, Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:

> Love your "some civil society persons”.

	Well, its not the phrasing I would have used had it not already been used.

> Love you 'some issues" as well.
> Perhaps it is just "some you".
> I am sure everyone will enjoy your  manière de faire

	Something lost in translation there. I understand the literal meaning, but I guess I am missing something colloquial.

> JNC, contrary to the people who are funded by big US money, are accepting no money from either the US government or corps or status-quo institutions such as ICANN

	So, is it your contention that if ICANN gives financial assistance to civil society to increase civil society participation, that is wrong? Or, for that matter, developing nation governments or technical community, etc?
	I cheerily accept ICANN travel funding as a way to participate in ICANN, and I am pleased that ICANN does fund some participants to increase participation from civil society and the global south. I’m not sure why you are implying that is a bad thing. I think it fairly obvious that if ICANN did not give out travel funding, it would increase the influence of wealthy western governments and corporates.
	And there are certainly worse governments to accept money from than the US! Not that I’ve accepted any money from the US, or even the Australian government.

> or any other foreign governments or corporations. It would be so interesting to disclose the funding powers behind the multistakholderist faction: of course, if you wish us to be of some help with this, we are ready to provide you with a detailed list of the lucky funded folks in our CS world. Shall we go into that? Ready?

	Sure. My organisation is primarily membership and donation based and publicly post our financials. I know most of the active NCSG colleagues are either working for academic institutions or for membership or donation funded organisations - and virtually everyone involved in ICANN processes has a public SOI on file. There are certainly orgs that accept corporate donations, and many of them have very open finances (CDT, for example).
	I’m curious about the membership and funding of plenty of groups in CS, including some in JNC, though curiosity alone isn’t always sufficient justification. But FWIW, I suspect your implied 'threat’ there is based on the assumption that everyone shares your opinions that all corporate funding on civil society by corporations you dislike makes them tainted - and I think that is simply a minority view based on a fairly rigid ideological position. Sometimes corporations, including large US internet ones, will ally with civil society when we have shared concerns, sometimes corporations will support civil society because they wish to support effective processes, sometimes corporate social responsibility programs might even imply a degree of altruism.

	Cheers
		David

> US money, British money, Swedish money ... let's follow the money for once. We will all learn a lot and some will have to stop pretending being true CS.
> 
> Who pays for the musicians...
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> Le 5 mars 2015 à 09:35, David Cake a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:39 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> .The fact that some  'civil society' persons sided with US and its allies (who as the key power-holders in the global IG realm have their obvious reasons) to do so indeed makes it a sad day for public interest advocacy.... parminder
>> 
>> 	I really find some civil society persons siding with Russia and the KSA on some issues to be a bigger long term concern for support of democracy within civil society, but perhaps that is just me.
>> 
>> 	Regards
>> 
>> 		David
>>>> 
>>>> M
>>>> 
>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Sent: March 4, 2015 7:42 AM
>>>> To: Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna Nwakanma;<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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 ::
>>>> 
>>>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>>>> 
>>>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>>>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>>>> 
>>>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>>>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/45160c9d/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/45160c9d/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From saper at saper.info  Thu Mar  5 04:36:48 2015
From: saper at saper.info (Marcin Cieslak)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:36:48 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Multistakeholder (was: UNESCO)
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577FA5@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>,<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577FA5@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1503050917512.4478@z.fncre.vasb>

(trimming addresses) 

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:

> I think Popper once said you should avoid discussions on
> definitions. They tend to turn into viciously circular infinite
> regressions. That said, we have problems with lots of concepts and
> phrases like for example "Everyone should have the same rights
> online as offline". Rights implies enforcement, enforcement requires
> a judiciary, judiciary needs a legislator, legislator needs...
> democratic accountability.

As somebody who worked with elections let me assume a very minimal
definition of democracy: It's a system, in which when things go wrong
an unsatisfied majority can overthrow the rulers in a peaceful manner,
usually by voting them down.

To me, if a system does not meet this criteria, it is not democratic.
You need a revolution to change things.

Once I told Polish PM, Mr Donald Tusk, a simple thing: "Sir, I am
afraid we have to assume that the Republic of Poland has no sovereignity
over the Internet". (We were discussing "illegal online gambling" or so).

Taking the above into consideration the way I think about it now is that
all the stakeholders needed to realize they nobody (yet?) has an actual
veto power over the network. So you had to take a step back and
see that you cannot exercise your power alone.

Multistakeholder model to me started as a way for governments,
corporations and activits to exchange some views, more
a communication and education effort rather than any "decision making".
Maybe it is just the way to *prevent* unilateral ruling by
any of the parties alone.

Nobody can say they truly represent "the users", or the connected
community. Nobody currently holds the power to say "things
go wrong, let's stop". Finding some majority (or even
a large coherent group) is an illusion.

I like the word "democratic" a lot but I am not sure where
it should go in this context. Don't get be started on participation,
representation and all those things that maybe few percent
of Internet community enjoy in their daily lives.

Marcin Cieślak
*mostly just lurking here*

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  5 04:46:46 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:46:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
> > drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
> > economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
> > have global significance?
> 
> 
> With pleasure.  This is why:
> 
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users

I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
JNC.

For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.

We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.

JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
follows:

   Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
   Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
   appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
   Internet that are democratic and participative.

We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
implemented in a way that is not democratic.

We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
democratic *and* participative.

This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.

We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
participative.

Is that so hard to understand???


The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at

http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
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 erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Thu Mar  5 04:54:26 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:54:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Multistakeholder (was: UNESCO)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1503050917512.4478@z.fncre.vasb>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>,<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577FA5@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<alpine.BSF.2.11.1503050917512.4478@z.fncre.vasb>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578061@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Thanks Marcin! I actually think that's Popper's idea[1] too :-)

But then again, Popper never saw a real flamewar on a mailing list!

On the other hand, I think the Romans said that slavery has nothing to do with freedom since suicide is not prohibited.

***

For the academics and policy nerds on the list, I recommend the JURI hearing on administrative procedures in the EU and the US:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/juri/events.html

I think it might help put "internet governance" into perspective.

Best regards.

//Erik

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q="Popper's idea that democracy allows us to change our leaders and laws without violence and bloodshed"
________________________________________
From: Marcin Cieslak [saper at saper.info]
Sent: Thursday 5 March 2015 10:36
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JOSEFSSON Erik
Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Multistakeholder (was: UNESCO)

(trimming addresses)

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:

> I think Popper once said you should avoid discussions on
> definitions. They tend to turn into viciously circular infinite
> regressions. That said, we have problems with lots of concepts and
> phrases like for example "Everyone should have the same rights
> online as offline". Rights implies enforcement, enforcement requires
> a judiciary, judiciary needs a legislator, legislator needs...
> democratic accountability.

As somebody who worked with elections let me assume a very minimal
definition of democracy: It's a system, in which when things go wrong
an unsatisfied majority can overthrow the rulers in a peaceful manner,
usually by voting them down.

To me, if a system does not meet this criteria, it is not democratic.
You need a revolution to change things.

Once I told Polish PM, Mr Donald Tusk, a simple thing: "Sir, I am
afraid we have to assume that the Republic of Poland has no sovereignity
over the Internet". (We were discussing "illegal online gambling" or so).

Taking the above into consideration the way I think about it now is that
all the stakeholders needed to realize they nobody (yet?) has an actual
veto power over the network. So you had to take a step back and
see that you cannot exercise your power alone.

Multistakeholder model to me started as a way for governments,
corporations and activits to exchange some views, more
a communication and education effort rather than any "decision making".
Maybe it is just the way to *prevent* unilateral ruling by
any of the parties alone.

Nobody can say they truly represent "the users", or the connected
community. Nobody currently holds the power to say "things
go wrong, let's stop". Finding some majority (or even
a large coherent group) is an illusion.

I like the word "democratic" a lot but I am not sure where
it should go in this context. Don't get be started on participation,
representation and all those things that maybe few percent
of Internet community enjoy in their daily lives.

Marcin Cieślak
*mostly just lurking here*

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  5 05:05:56 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:35:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <C94456FD-F5A8-45FA-AEC3-21ADAE671234@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <1AB694D9-95C2-41D3-9940-7CBAF776D8BB@gmail.com> <C94456FD-F5A8-45FA-AEC3-21ADAE671234@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <54F82A84.7060709@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 05 March 2015 03:01 PM, David Cake wrote:
>
> snip
> I’m curious about the membership and funding of plenty of groups in 
> CS, including some in JNC, though curiosity alone isn’t always 
> sufficient justification.

You should always ask - any organisation in public policy space must 
tell about its funding. Yours is a right to ask, and it the 
responsibility of every such organisation to tell. About JNC members, 
let me know which one are you curious about and I will find out about 
their funding and get back to you.

BTW, did you really entirely miss all the emails that especially Norbert 
has been posting seeking funding information about BestBits steering 
committee members, or are your curiosities just rather too partisan and 
one-sided.

parminder

> But FWIW, I suspect your implied 'threat’ there is based on the 
> assumption that everyone shares your opinions that all corporate 
> funding on civil society by corporations you dislike makes them 
> tainted - and I think that is simply a minority view based on a fairly 
> rigid ideological position. Sometimes corporations, including large US 
> internet ones, will ally with civil society when we have shared 
> concerns, sometimes corporations will support civil society because 
> they wish to support effective processes, sometimes corporate social 
> responsibility programs might even imply a degree of altruism.
>
> Cheers
> David
>
>> US money, British money, Swedish money ... let's follow the money for 
>> once. We will all learn a lot and some will have to stop pretending 
>> being true CS.
>>
>> Who pays for the musicians...
>>
>> JC
>>
>>
>> Le 5 mars 2015 à 09:35, David Cake a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:39 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>> .The fact that some  'civil society' persons sided with US and its 
>>>> allies (who as the key power-holders in the global IG realm have 
>>>> their obvious reasons) to do so indeed makes it a sad day for 
>>>> public interest advocacy.... parminder
>>>
>>> I really find some civil society persons siding with Russia and the 
>>> KSA on some issues to be a bigger long term concern for support of 
>>> democracy within civil society, but perhaps that is just me.
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> David
>>>>> M
>>>>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net]*On 
>>>>> Behalf Of*Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>> *Sent:*March 4, 2015 7:42 AM
>>>>> *To:*Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>> *Cc:*Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna 
>>>>> Nwakanma;<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>>>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org 
>>>>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the
>>>>>     opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and
>>>>>     acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it
>>>>>     would otherwise have been because of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT 
>>>>> represent all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on 
>>>>> behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a 
>>>>> formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify 
>>>>> references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he 
>>>>> incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting 
>>>>> session), and its omission to include a reference to 
>>>>> the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural 
>>>>> Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the 
>>>>> meeting by consensus.
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>> https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
>>>>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>>> Public key:https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>>>>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>>>>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>>>>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>>>>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as 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 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/2d7e4d94/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From saper at saper.info  Thu Mar  5 05:14:05 2015
From: saper at saper.info (Marcin Cieslak)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:14:05 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Multistakeholder (was: UNESCO)
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578061@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>,<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577FA5@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<alpine.BSF.2.11.1503050917512.4478@z.fncre.vasb>
 <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578061@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1503051012340.4478@z.fncre.vasb>

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:

> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/juri/events.html
> 
> I think it might help put "internet governance" into perspective.

video stream:

rtsp://stream.streamovations.be:1935/vodedge/_definst_/cache/epsession-12-2015-02-24-1500.mp4?tracks=or

(original track, you can replace "or" with "en", "de", etc. to pick up any of EU official languages)


Marcin

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Mar  5 05:17:02 2015
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:17:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Multistakeholder (was: UNESCO)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1503050917512.4478@z.fncre.vasb>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577FA5@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1503050917512.4478@z.fncre.vasb>
Message-ID: <CAPcSPKVdRwa7e0norLtFoGbacThzP_S4vcbZc_O_rxDN46nKnA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Martin,

Indeed, no one can claim to have the majority of Internet and
especially not have
influence on 80% of all categories communities.

In this process, I would say better "gift, sharing information" because the
finish, we can not reap what we have sown, and even less.

It is a dynamic that must maintain constant boiling to continue having
reactions
or feedback to enrich the debate.

We must continually revisit its own communication strategy and adapted
according
to the context and circumstances.

This is the world of knowledge that is very moving, very mobile, a maze that
requires active attention.

2015-03-05 10:36 GMT+01:00 Marcin Cieslak <saper at saper.info>:

> (trimming addresses)
>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:
>
> > I think Popper once said you should avoid discussions on
> > definitions. They tend to turn into viciously circular infinite
> > regressions. That said, we have problems with lots of concepts and
> > phrases like for example "Everyone should have the same rights
> > online as offline". Rights implies enforcement, enforcement requires
> > a judiciary, judiciary needs a legislator, legislator needs...
> > democratic accountability.
>
> As somebody who worked with elections let me assume a very minimal
> definition of democracy: It's a system, in which when things go wrong
> an unsatisfied majority can overthrow the rulers in a peaceful manner,
> usually by voting them down.
>
> To me, if a system does not meet this criteria, it is not democratic.
> You need a revolution to change things.
>
> Once I told Polish PM, Mr Donald Tusk, a simple thing: "Sir, I am
> afraid we have to assume that the Republic of Poland has no sovereignity
> over the Internet". (We were discussing "illegal online gambling" or so).
>
> Taking the above into consideration the way I think about it now is that
> all the stakeholders needed to realize they nobody (yet?) has an actual
> veto power over the network. So you had to take a step back and
> see that you cannot exercise your power alone.
>
> Multistakeholder model to me started as a way for governments,
> corporations and activits to exchange some views, more
> a communication and education effort rather than any "decision making".
> Maybe it is just the way to *prevent* unilateral ruling by
> any of the parties alone.
>
> Nobody can say they truly represent "the users", or the connected
> community. Nobody currently holds the power to say "things
> go wrong, let's stop". Finding some majority (or even
> a large coherent group) is an illusion.
>
> I like the word "democratic" a lot but I am not sure where
> it should go in this context. Don't get be started on participation,
> representation and all those things that maybe few percent
> of Internet community enjoy in their daily lives.
>
> Marcin Cieślak
> *mostly just lurking here*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/9be9c32f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Mar  5 05:35:30 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:35:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the
 Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
Message-ID: <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>

Dear all

Just an explanation and some context.

I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
secretariat in compiling drafts.

The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.

This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text
from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved
weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).

The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
report rather than in the outcome statement.

Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
discussion.

It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an
option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial
statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I
would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic
However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why
"democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the
word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that
'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the
importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
in front of multistakeholder.

In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
the text.

At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but
because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.

The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are
full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.

I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert
(at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.

I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
number of requests for putting it in.

This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
this way.

There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the
early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity
is illegitimate.

Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents
we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the losses.

In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting
it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south
who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will,
I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society,
particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and
influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.

Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
values - of the Just Net Coalition.

Anriette



On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>> have global significance?
>>
>>
>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>
>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
> 
> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
> JNC.
> 
> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> 
> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
> 
> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
> follows:
> 
>    Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>    Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>    appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>    Internet that are democratic and participative.
> 
> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
> 
> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
> democratic *and* participative.
> 
> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
> 
> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
> participative.
> 
> Is that so hard to understand???
> 
> 
> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
> 
> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> http://JustNetCoalition.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 shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Thu Mar  5 06:03:41 2015
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:03:41 +0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54F8380D.3050305@bytesforall.pk>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

...and adding to what Anriette said below, we are shocked to see such a
response from veterans and leaders of CSOs on IG. This unfortunately,
completely negates the spirit of working together.

We have to continue to work together and strive for more building upon
and capitalizing on the small successes here an there.

Thanks and best wishes
Shahzad



On 3/5/15 3:35 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Just an explanation and some context.
>
> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>
> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>
> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
> made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text
> from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved
> weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>
> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
> reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>
> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
> discussion.
>
> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an
> option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial
> statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I
> would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic
> However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why
> "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the
> word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
> every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that
> 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the
> importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
> in front of multistakeholder.
>
> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
> the text.
>
> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but
> because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>
> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are
> full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>
> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert
> (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>
> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
> number of requests for putting it in.
>
> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
> this way.
>
> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the
> early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity
> is illegitimate.
>
> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents
> we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the
losses.
>
> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting
> it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south
> who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will,
> I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society,
> particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and
> influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
>
> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>> have global significance?
>>>
>>>
>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>
>>>
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>
>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
>> JNC.
>>
>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>
>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
>>
>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>> follows:
>>
>>    Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>    Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>    appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>    Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>
>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>
>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>> democratic *and* participative.
>>
>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
>> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>
>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>> participative.
>>
>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>
>>
>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
>> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
>> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>
>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>> http://JustNetCoalition.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:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

- -- 
Shahzad Ahmad
Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall
Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981

PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=xy+J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/af9dbfdd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Mar  5 06:53:52 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:53:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Text of speech - losing remarks at
 UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CAD9U4iG6dCJrrauAh4qGGAZRRbOCH+H+1-svkmiyzhkTgMyJRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com> <54F760A6.8000608@cgi.br> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642BEF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54F7B034.4010907@ITforChange.net> <CAD9U4iG6dCJrrauAh4qGGAZRRbOCH+H+1-svkmiyzhkTgMyJRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D686C456-1AB7-4CFC-93FB-D7E9F58CF8AF@consensus.pro>

... and quite a few older peeps too :)

On 5 Mar 2015, at 10:44, Elvis-Wura Towolawi <lawiwura88 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nnenna. You have expressed the desire of every millenial

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/8a77bdb1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/8a77bdb1/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Mar  5 07:06:46 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:06:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F8380D.3050305@bytesforall.pk>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <54F8380D.3050305@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <54F846D6.8030600@apc.org>

Thanks so much Shahzad.

Anriette


On 05/03/2015 13:03, Shahzad Ahmad wrote:
> 
> ...and adding to what Anriette said below, we are shocked to see such a
> response from veterans and leaders of CSOs on IG. This unfortunately,
> completely negates the spirit of working together.
> 
> We have to continue to work together and strive for more building upon
> and capitalizing on the small successes here an there.
> 
> Thanks and best wishes
> Shahzad
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/5/15 3:35 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear all
> 
>> Just an explanation and some context.
> 
>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
> 
>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
> 
>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
>> made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text
>> from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved
>> weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
> 
>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
>> reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
>> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
> 
>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
>> discussion.
> 
>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an
>> option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial
>> statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I
>> would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic
>> However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why
>> "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the
>> word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
>> every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that
>> 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the
>> importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
>> in front of multistakeholder.
> 
>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
>> the text.
> 
>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but
>> because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
> 
>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are
>> full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
>> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
> 
>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert
>> (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
>> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
>> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
> 
>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
>> number of requests for putting it in.
> 
>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
>> this way.
> 
>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the
>> early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity
>> is illegitimate.
> 
>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents
>> we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the
> losses.
> 
>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting
>> it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south
>> who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will,
>> I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society,
>> particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and
>> influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
> 
>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
>> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
> 
>> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>>> have global significance?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>>
>>>>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>>
>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
>>> JNC.
>>>
>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>>
>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
>>>
>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>>    Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>>    Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>>    appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>>    Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>>
>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>>
>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>>> democratic *and* participative.
>>>
>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
>>> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>>
>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>>> participative.
>>>
>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>>
>>>
>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
>>> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
>>> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>>
>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>> http://JustNetCoalition.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:
>>>      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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  5 07:41:45 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:11:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
 the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54F84F09.1020507@itforchange.net>

Dear Anriette

Respectfully, there sure can be justifications and justifications, but 
there are also some solid facts that we must contend with.

The first fact here is about 'social, economic and cultural rights':

First about its cardinal importance - I cant see the 'access' pillar of 
UNESCO's interest in IG without a social, economic and cultural rights 
framing, it becomes something very different without that framing, which 
btw is what both telcos and MNCs like facebook and google want. So, 
there is nothing innocent about it. There is a big global political 
struggle about what 'access' means in normative terms. (Even telcos 
cited the 'access' issue in their opposition to net neutrality!) In 
fact, I see even privacy framed in soc and eco rights framing becuase of 
the key economic value of data today, and certainly ethics. I can keep 
writing on this subject, but I am sure you understand. You might 
remember that the framing of communication rights basically arose from 
this issue - that negative rights do not suffice to enable people's 
communicative power and equity, we need positive rights as well. Whereby 
communications rights were framed as against just an exclusive accent on 
freedom of expression. And of course UNESCO was at the centre of those 
political struggles. Everyone knows that the US has always been solidly 
against the eco/soc/cultural rights side of communicative systems, and 
in Paris they (again) won, with implicit or explicit support of civil 
society groups among others. This is a fact, and we must face it.

We just need to contend with the fact that eco, soc and cultural rights 
are not mentioned in the document, even when civil and political rights 
are mentioned, as well as the corresponding covenant. As you say 
elsewhere in your email,  UN documents indeed have continuities of text, 
earlier political struggles and so on. And so, the mistakes and loses of 
this document will be taken forward. After WSIS, if was the first key IG 
doc made in a UN body, and so the losses are huge.

In the circumstances, it is not just a matter of everyone being good and 
nice to everyone one else here, there is a political struggle and in my 
view a great political loss here. We need to know who always so well 
remembers to put FoE and civil/ political rights and who forgets to put 
economic and social rights, in framing communication/ information 
issues. Who forgot in this particular case, and who ignored. You say, 
the proposal to put eco and soc rights came in too late. We, as in JNC, 
proposed when we saw the draft. We sure cannot propose earlier. But what 
were the drafters doing - well perhaps they need to take more people who 
are likely to remember this set of rights! These are real issues. These 
cannot just be swept under the carpet because all of us should be nice 
to all others of us. We need to know. And we need to be able to tell our 
constituencies outside, to whom we are primarily responsible.

Also about the proposal to put this part coming in late, and drafters 
wanting a short document,  tell me how much time and space it takes to 
put a comma at the end of preambular para beginning with "Further 
recalled.....  " and adding after ...Covenant on Civil and Political 
rights just this - "....and the International Covenant on Social, 
Economic and Cultural Rights". Especially when whole new points and 
sentences have been added to the draft between the last plenary and the 
final document! Did those present there as civil society even at that 
stage when they discovered that soc and eco rights were missing really 
take this issue up with full might? Did anyone there solidly back the 
demand. I very much doubt - bec the proof is out there. Why did we not 
fully put our foot down. After all we would only be asking what exists 
in most UN doc on similar issues, and which was there prominently in the 
WSIS documents.

I dont think we should put up excuses that the demand for putting in soc 
and eco rights came in late, and UNESCO wanted a short doc, and so on. 
This excuse is untenable, in a provable way as I show above. Other long 
text were included, and much later.. If it is wrong, and an enormous 
political loss, it is so, clearly and bluntly! We must accept it.

The second fact we must contend with is that some civil society people 
there joined US and its allies to say 'democratic' has baggage, and all 
possible references to 'democracy' were refused. And what I really find 
somewhat shocking is that you are sympathetically explaining that view, 
although in a most unconvincing manner. Dont you think multistakeholder 
has baggage! Why did you not remove that term on the same logic. Do you 
not know that there are parties that think even 'human rights' have 
baggage. Would you accept such a logic?  Who decides what has baggage? 
Does this also bespeaks a certain composition of civil society that was 
more actively present and involved there. So,  should we now start 
considering 'democratic' as a likely problematic term. Great progress we 
are making! First one needed to fight to get democratic into the 
NetMundial document in just one place when multistakeholder is there in 
about 30 places. And then comes the meeting at UNESCO  - an hallowed UN 
body - and here we are told that well in fact 'democratic' is 
problematic and has baggage and so let it be completely out.

I dont understand you logic that in Tunis Agenda democratic is always 
mentioned with multilateral and therefore is means multilateral . I 
thought if a word is mentioned along with another one, it can be taken 
that it means something different. At places, all three democratic, 
multilateral and multistakeholder are mentioned together in TA. Does 
that mean that each of these then is a code word for the other. This is 
a very weak and unsustainable logic.

Meanwhile, you know that it is not as you say 'the editing group did 
consider it seriously'. When Anita proposed putting 'democratic 
dialogue' in a different place, in 5.1, such apparently was the depth of 
antipathy to the term 'democratic' that the group quietly included 
'public dialogue' not touching the word 'democratic' even here, in a 
largely 'innocent' usage. (This in fact was a good opportunity to 
assuage those who were demanding the inclusion of the 'democratic term - 
a democratic dialogue certainly cannot mean multilateral, or does it ? 
But the fact that even this opportunity was not taken shows how solidly 
the forces against democracy were entrenched. I simply do not know what 
civil society persons on the inside were doing.) This really makes one 
extremely alarmed, to see such studious exclusion of the word 
'democratic'. It is from this alarm that our extreme concern at what 
happened in Paris is pouring out. And you want us to simply accept it as 
if nothing happened and move on.

BTW, when you say,"It is a pity that 'democratic was not added, but it 
was never really an option' , I do not fully understand. Why you say 'it 
was never really an option'. That itself is alarming. Have we reached 
such a stage that use of the term 'democratic' is no longer really an 
option for global normative texts of IG'.  JNC has an analysis of what 
is happening here, and we have held it for a long time, with pretty 
accurate predictive value, as we see things unfolding like what happened 
in Paris. We are not ready to be happy to move on. We intend to dig in 
and fight. Social, economic and cultural rights must be restored as key 
normative values for the communicative sphere of which the Internet is 
today a central element. And governance in all areas, including the 
Internet, will be democratic - that must be made clear. We will decry 
any effort or move which goes against these, and if needed the actors 
responsible. This is a political struggle, not a cocktail party.

There is more, but later.

And I do thank you for your report below.

parminder



On Thursday 05 March 2015 04:05 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Just an explanation and some context.
>
> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>
> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>
> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
> made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text
> from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved
> weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>
> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
> reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>
> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
> discussion.
>
> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an
> option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial
> statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I
> would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic
> However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why
> "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the
> word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
> every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that
> 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the
> importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
> in front of multistakeholder.
>
> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
> the text.
>
> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but
> because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>
> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are
> full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>
> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert
> (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>
> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
> number of requests for putting it in.
>
> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
> this way.
>
> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the
> early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity
> is illegitimate.
>
> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents
> we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the losses.
>
> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting
> it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south
> who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will,
> I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society,
> particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and
> influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
>
> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>> have global significance?
>>>
>>>
>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>
>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>
>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
>> JNC.
>>
>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>
>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
>>
>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>> follows:
>>
>>     Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>     Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>     appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>     Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>
>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>
>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>> democratic *and* participative.
>>
>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
>> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>
>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>> participative.
>>
>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>
>>
>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
>> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
>> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>
>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>> http://JustNetCoalition.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  5 08:27:43 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:57:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
 the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54F859CF.2060507@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 05 March 2015 04:05 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
SNIP
>
> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
> individuals you name,

Michael responded basically to Jeremy, about whose manner of speaking 
about CS 'colleagues' now and earlier perhaps is something which may 
also require a comment.

And later when he mentions a series of organisations

"EFF? Access? APC? UNESCO?  ISOC? South Africa? Brazil? France?"

He is speaking at an entirely different level - he certainly makes no 
allegation against them. He says he is happy that finally Jeremy is 
publicly stating his stand on 'democratic', and his employer and other 
organisations present in Paris, or otherwise major IG players, should 
show hands on what they think about his twitterred statement - 'that 
'democratic' has baggage'. They all must also go public on this all 
crucial issue.

In fact, I think this is so important an issue, indeed all concerned 
organisations should tell their views on this matter. We have for too 
long avoided taking a stand on democracy and IG, and normative standards 
seem slipping down fast. Good to take an upfront stand. Michael merely 
asks these organisations to do so - he is certainly not alleging all 
these organisations think the same as  Jeremy does- at least youd accept 
South Africa is unlikely to agree.

parminder



  but also the work - and what I believe to be the
> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>> have global significance?
>>>
>>>
>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>
>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>
>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
>> JNC.
>>
>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>
>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
>>
>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>> follows:
>>
>>     Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>     Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>     appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>     Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>
>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>
>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>> democratic *and* participative.
>>
>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
>> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>
>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>> participative.
>>
>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>
>>
>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
>> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
>> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>
>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>> http://JustNetCoalition.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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Thu Mar  5 10:02:02 2015
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:32:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F8380D.3050305@bytesforall.pk>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <54F8380D.3050305@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <54F86FEA.80708@ITforChange.net>

On Thursday 05 March 2015 04:33 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> ...and adding to what Anriette said below, we are shocked to see such 
> a response from veterans and leaders of CSOs on IG. This 
> unfortunately, completely negates the spirit of working together.
>

Thanks Shahzadbhai
I suppose you are referring here to Jeremy's blog? where he continues 
his rant against JNC with extraordinary mis-characterisations and mud 
slinging?  this was missing in Anriette's mail
warm regards,
Guru

> We have to continue to work together and strive for more building upon 
> and capitalizing on the small successes here an there.
the omission of 'democracy' is an extra ordinary loss, I am sure I need 
not tell you this.

>
> Thanks and best wishes
> Shahzad
>
>
>
> On 3/5/15 3:35 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > Just an explanation and some context.
> >
> > I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
> > review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
> > secretariat in compiling drafts.
> >
> > The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
> > text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
> >
> > This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
> > made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text
> > from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved
> > weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
> >
> > The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
> > reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
> > were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
> > It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
> > UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
> > report rather than in the outcome statement.
> >
> > Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
> > discussion.
> >
> > It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an
> > option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
> > multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial
> > statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I
> > would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic
> > However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why
> > "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the
> > word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
> > every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that
> > 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the
> > importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
> > intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
> > in front of multistakeholder.
> >
> > In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
> > reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
> > the text.
> >
> > At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but
> > because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
> >
> > The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are
> > full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
> > struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
> >
> > I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert
> > (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
> > democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
> > this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
> > unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
> >
> > I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
> > that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
> > number of requests for putting it in.
> >
> > This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
> > this way.
> >
> > There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
> > fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the
> > early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
> > government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity
> > is illegitimate.
> >
> > Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents
> > we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the 
> losses.
> >
> > In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting
> > it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south
> > who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will,
> > I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society,
> > particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and
> > influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
> >
> > Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
> > what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
> > demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
> > individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
> > values - of the Just Net Coalition.
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
> >> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
> >>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
> >>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
> >>>> have global significance?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> With pleasure.  This is why:
> >>>
> >>> 
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
> >>
> >> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
> >> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
> >> JNC.
> >>
> >> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> >>
> >> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
> >> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
> >> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
> >> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
> >>
> >> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
> >> follows:
> >>
> >>    Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
> >>    Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
> >>    appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
> >>    Internet that are democratic and participative.
> >>
> >> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
> >> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
> >>
> >> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
> >> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
> >> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
> >> democratic *and* participative.
> >>
> >> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
> >> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
> >> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
> >>
> >> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
> >> participative.
> >>
> >> Is that so hard to understand???
> >>
> >>
> >> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
> >> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
> >> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite 
> full of
> >> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
> >> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
> >>
> >> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Norbert
> >> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> >> http://JustNetCoalition.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:
> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> - -- 
> Shahzad Ahmad
> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
> IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall
> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
> Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981
>
> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU+DgMAAoJEKVOI9utV3a+ousP/1cTWhLd3jzVtxr6vm10pcjT
> gQMJYlAQR0hb97gIj4MPvjnCtWJu3FW1acKiHb6a2SbRnOKP+//ZRtSA5rITjnzh
> cVyAUEEsfdOZq50pSQtL/QU4P5SIvRiuRJKwduurVWXkcShDS1Z2sVSXf9tS5aV/
> EVPBqw7i5h8hXuNsPW3t1vWERXp1drDamtuZFHq79E52wm5EogZ2aloeHrPQOn7K
> rMaiZHQp7qanACcDw8juWK3E6myNZlIzmYKx4n/W7nTMy4X14tyKWu46RsA3J55A
> 1aaJX3EU9BLRp1DvAOG13WhLCZ4RxJoN0UKqLYtaEiV923hru7SOGvuAQR7wJ2pK
> SSpmO4GiwxubTwfhHLH7yjtmd750MR4DZpnAGQr7GJDVo5LZI6JcMTkef/q3uhBl
> mi9nn2yuDFDVajik9xPNHOCqFl5ZRBE2hTHgtDnmBRnP/3KZcVLUzZAv5DwkbqID
> sqg5qkV1EQo4L7zhK2gsQSrnjyyNzspZQ5Dd06T8Ja1vHUX8uspvioVmVpm+Pn+P
> ZuToKMTE3TKCeJbGyZqMC3bWyGuBLF+wdu6CiA3eC/d67rqTLNfVz1JrmLzPNBZm
> S4loFtHK0hJsitl6IwlPG6jRoJ7Lw5UwYoAhNbwfCO1fi3+VoRMzRGgFGTnx1uzZ
> oqs38JMYiwAi5mjfSVWj
> =xy+J
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/12bec7ec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  5 10:04:54 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:04:54 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
Message-ID: <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>

Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of "multistakeholderism <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/> " and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning" of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty. 

 

This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being evolved") in this sphere.

 

BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own normative structures as I queried in my previous email?

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

Dear all

 

Just an explanation and some context.

 

I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and secretariat in compiling drafts.

 

The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.

 

This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).

 

The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.

It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study report rather than in the outcome statement.

 

Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the discussion.

 

It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'

in front of multistakeholder.

 

In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into the text.

 

At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.

 

The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.

 

I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.

 

I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the number of requests for putting it in.

 

This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in this way.

 

There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity is illegitimate.

 

Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the losses.

 

In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.

 

Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the values - of the Just Net Coalition.

 

Anriette

 

 

 

On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100

> Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> 

>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>> 

>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the 

>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and 

>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to 

>>> have global significance?

>> 

>> 

>> With pleasure.  This is why:

>> 

>>  <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-t> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-t

>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users

> 

> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's 

> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of 

> JNC.

> 

> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.

> 

> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be 

> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right, 

> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented 

> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.

> 

> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as

> follows:

> 

>    Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to

>    Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish

>    appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the

>    Internet that are democratic and participative.

> 

> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is 

> implemented in a way that is not democratic.

> 

> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance 

> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational 

> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are 

> democratic *and* participative.

> 

> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is 

> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led 

> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.

> 

> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and* 

> participative.

> 

> Is that so hard to understand???

> 

> 

> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier 

> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the 

> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full 

> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which 

> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at

> 

>  <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm

> 

> Greetings,

> Norbert

> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition

>  <http://JustNetCoalition.org> http://JustNetCoalition.org

> 

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>       <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

> To be removed from the list, visit:

>       <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

> 

> For all other list information and functions, see:

>       <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>       <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

> 

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

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/b376f465/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From marie.georges at noos.fr  Thu Mar  5 10:39:51 2015
From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:39:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C951BC77-B85D-424A-8092-ADFDBD17A096@noos.fr>

And ..Dear All..

	.....do you believe that, talking about fundamental rights and Internet,  
		.....it has not been possible to include in the text an amendment (sent the day before the conference) referring to the Data Protection Principles (coherent with the FIPS in US, the OCDE guide line and the CoE's convention) adopted UNANIMOUSLY in 1990 by the General Assembly of UN !!!!!

What a terrible JOKE at the expense of all citizens in the world (Unesco 's Budget)

Marie

Le 5 mars 2015 à 16:04, Michael Gurstein a écrit :

> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of "multistakeholderism" and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning" of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
>  
> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being evolved") in this sphere.
>  
> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
>  
> M
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>  
> Dear all
>  
> Just an explanation and some context.
>  
> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and secretariat in compiling drafts.
>  
> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>  
> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>  
> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study report rather than in the outcome statement.
>  
> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the discussion.
>  
> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
> in front of multistakeholder.
>  
> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into the text.
>  
> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>  
> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>  
> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>  
> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the number of requests for putting it in.
>  
> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in this way.
>  
> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity is illegitimate.
>  
> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the losses.
>  
> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
>  
> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>  
> Anriette
>  
>  
>  
> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
> > Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
> >>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
> >>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
> >>> have global significance?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> With pleasure.  This is why:
> >> 
> >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-t
> >> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
> >
> > I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
> > view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
> > JNC.
> >
> > For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> >
> > We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
> > democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
> > even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
> > satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
> >
> > JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
> > follows:
> >
> >    Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
> >    Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
> >    appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
> >    Internet that are democratic and participative.
> >
> > We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
> > implemented in a way that is not democratic.
> >
> > We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
> > of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
> > document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
> > democratic *and* participative.
> >
> > This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
> > our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
> > rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
> >
> > We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
> > participative.
> >
> > Is that so hard to understand???
> >
> >
> > The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
> > blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
> > agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full
> > of factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which
> > had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
> >
> > http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> > http://JustNetCoalition.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/35b51eda/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Mar  5 11:43:54 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:43:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
 the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F84F09.1020507@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <54F84F09.1020507@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54F887CA.9070004@apc.org>

Dear Parminder

Did JNC include economic and social rights in the submission you made to
the UNESCO study? I mean beforehand.

All I can say is that the addition of economic and social rights was
made the afternoon when the statement was being finalised. I argued that
it should be included but it was not. If there was more time I think
that it would have been easy to include the reference to the ESCR treaty
in the preamble, and in the text. But translators were demanding the
text and time was up.

There were other things too that were argued which took time. The people
who submitted content will know what made it and what did not.

Whether civil society organisations accept the statement is up to them.

I did not claim to represent civil society in this process.  I was also
not the only civil society person on the committee. I truly did my best
to try and make sure the text accommodated strong concerns and spoke
with individuals from several governments and civil society
organisations - including JNC - in an effort to do so.

APC has always emphasised economic, social and cultural rights in
relation to the internet and will continue to do so.

The reason I said that adding 'democratic' was not an option was that on
the first day during the open discussion of the text Richard proposed
the text and several governments submitted comments to say that it is
non-negotiable for them and that if it was added they would dissociate
themselves with the document.

I shared this with Richard so that he had advance warning. The only way
of changing that would probably have been to work with government
delegations and convince them to argue for it.

I don't want to get into a long battle of words beyond this. Of course
there are political issues at play that we need to be aware of and
address. It is your view that JNC are the only people who are doing so.

I know that others, including APC, are also addressing these issues, in
multiple forums and in multiple ways.

Anriette


On 05/03/2015 14:41, parminder wrote:
> Dear Anriette
> 
> Respectfully, there sure can be justifications and justifications, but
> there are also some solid facts that we must contend with.
> 
> The first fact here is about 'social, economic and cultural rights':
> 
> First about its cardinal importance - I cant see the 'access' pillar of
> UNESCO's interest in IG without a social, economic and cultural rights
> framing, it becomes something very different without that framing, which
> btw is what both telcos and MNCs like facebook and google want. So,
> there is nothing innocent about it. There is a big global political
> struggle about what 'access' means in normative terms. (Even telcos
> cited the 'access' issue in their opposition to net neutrality!) In
> fact, I see even privacy framed in soc and eco rights framing becuase of
> the key economic value of data today, and certainly ethics. I can keep
> writing on this subject, but I am sure you understand. You might
> remember that the framing of communication rights basically arose from
> this issue - that negative rights do not suffice to enable people's
> communicative power and equity, we need positive rights as well. Whereby
> communications rights were framed as against just an exclusive accent on
> freedom of expression. And of course UNESCO was at the centre of those
> political struggles. Everyone knows that the US has always been solidly
> against the eco/soc/cultural rights side of communicative systems, and
> in Paris they (again) won, with implicit or explicit support of civil
> society groups among others. This is a fact, and we must face it.
> 
> We just need to contend with the fact that eco, soc and cultural rights
> are not mentioned in the document, even when civil and political rights
> are mentioned, as well as the corresponding covenant. As you say
> elsewhere in your email,  UN documents indeed have continuities of text,
> earlier political struggles and so on. And so, the mistakes and loses of
> this document will be taken forward. After WSIS, if was the first key IG
> doc made in a UN body, and so the losses are huge.
> 
> In the circumstances, it is not just a matter of everyone being good and
> nice to everyone one else here, there is a political struggle and in my
> view a great political loss here. We need to know who always so well
> remembers to put FoE and civil/ political rights and who forgets to put
> economic and social rights, in framing communication/ information
> issues. Who forgot in this particular case, and who ignored. You say,
> the proposal to put eco and soc rights came in too late. We, as in JNC,
> proposed when we saw the draft. We sure cannot propose earlier. But what
> were the drafters doing - well perhaps they need to take more people who
> are likely to remember this set of rights! These are real issues. These
> cannot just be swept under the carpet because all of us should be nice
> to all others of us. We need to know. And we need to be able to tell our
> constituencies outside, to whom we are primarily responsible.
> 
> Also about the proposal to put this part coming in late, and drafters
> wanting a short document,  tell me how much time and space it takes to
> put a comma at the end of preambular para beginning with "Further
> recalled.....  " and adding after ...Covenant on Civil and Political
> rights just this - "....and the International Covenant on Social,
> Economic and Cultural Rights". Especially when whole new points and
> sentences have been added to the draft between the last plenary and the
> final document! Did those present there as civil society even at that
> stage when they discovered that soc and eco rights were missing really
> take this issue up with full might? Did anyone there solidly back the
> demand. I very much doubt - bec the proof is out there. Why did we not
> fully put our foot down. After all we would only be asking what exists
> in most UN doc on similar issues, and which was there prominently in the
> WSIS documents.
> 
> I dont think we should put up excuses that the demand for putting in soc
> and eco rights came in late, and UNESCO wanted a short doc, and so on.
> This excuse is untenable, in a provable way as I show above. Other long
> text were included, and much later.. If it is wrong, and an enormous
> political loss, it is so, clearly and bluntly! We must accept it.
> 
> The second fact we must contend with is that some civil society people
> there joined US and its allies to say 'democratic' has baggage, and all
> possible references to 'democracy' were refused. And what I really find
> somewhat shocking is that you are sympathetically explaining that view,
> although in a most unconvincing manner. Dont you think multistakeholder
> has baggage! Why did you not remove that term on the same logic. Do you
> not know that there are parties that think even 'human rights' have
> baggage. Would you accept such a logic?  Who decides what has baggage?
> Does this also bespeaks a certain composition of civil society that was
> more actively present and involved there. So,  should we now start
> considering 'democratic' as a likely problematic term. Great progress we
> are making! First one needed to fight to get democratic into the
> NetMundial document in just one place when multistakeholder is there in
> about 30 places. And then comes the meeting at UNESCO  - an hallowed UN
> body - and here we are told that well in fact 'democratic' is
> problematic and has baggage and so let it be completely out.
> 
> I dont understand you logic that in Tunis Agenda democratic is always
> mentioned with multilateral and therefore is means multilateral . I
> thought if a word is mentioned along with another one, it can be taken
> that it means something different. At places, all three democratic,
> multilateral and multistakeholder are mentioned together in TA. Does
> that mean that each of these then is a code word for the other. This is
> a very weak and unsustainable logic.
> 
> Meanwhile, you know that it is not as you say 'the editing group did
> consider it seriously'. When Anita proposed putting 'democratic
> dialogue' in a different place, in 5.1, such apparently was the depth of
> antipathy to the term 'democratic' that the group quietly included
> 'public dialogue' not touching the word 'democratic' even here, in a
> largely 'innocent' usage. (This in fact was a good opportunity to
> assuage those who were demanding the inclusion of the 'democratic term -
> a democratic dialogue certainly cannot mean multilateral, or does it ?
> But the fact that even this opportunity was not taken shows how solidly
> the forces against democracy were entrenched. I simply do not know what
> civil society persons on the inside were doing.) This really makes one
> extremely alarmed, to see such studious exclusion of the word
> 'democratic'. It is from this alarm that our extreme concern at what
> happened in Paris is pouring out. And you want us to simply accept it as
> if nothing happened and move on.
> 
> BTW, when you say,"It is a pity that 'democratic was not added, but it
> was never really an option' , I do not fully understand. Why you say 'it
> was never really an option'. That itself is alarming. Have we reached
> such a stage that use of the term 'democratic' is no longer really an
> option for global normative texts of IG'.  JNC has an analysis of what
> is happening here, and we have held it for a long time, with pretty
> accurate predictive value, as we see things unfolding like what happened
> in Paris. We are not ready to be happy to move on. We intend to dig in
> and fight. Social, economic and cultural rights must be restored as key
> normative values for the communicative sphere of which the Internet is
> today a central element. And governance in all areas, including the
> Internet, will be democratic - that must be made clear. We will decry
> any effort or move which goes against these, and if needed the actors
> responsible. This is a political struggle, not a cocktail party.
> 
> There is more, but later.
> 
> And I do thank you for your report below.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday 05 March 2015 04:05 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Just an explanation and some context.
>>
>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>>
>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>>
>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
>> made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text
>> from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved
>> weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>>
>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
>> reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
>> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>>
>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
>> discussion.
>>
>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an
>> option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial
>> statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I
>> would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic
>> However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why
>> "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the
>> word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
>> every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that
>> 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the
>> importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
>> in front of multistakeholder.
>>
>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
>> the text.
>>
>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but
>> because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>>
>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are
>> full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
>> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>>
>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert
>> (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
>> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
>> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>>
>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
>> number of requests for putting it in.
>>
>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
>> this way.
>>
>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the
>> early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity
>> is illegitimate.
>>
>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents
>> we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the
>> losses.
>>
>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting
>> it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south
>> who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will,
>> I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society,
>> particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and
>> influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
>>
>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
>> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>>> have global significance?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>>
>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
>>> JNC.
>>>
>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>>
>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
>>>
>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>>     Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>>     Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>>     appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>>     Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>>
>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>>
>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>>> democratic *and* participative.
>>>
>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
>>> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>>
>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>>> participative.
>>>
>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>>
>>>
>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
>>> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
>>> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>>
>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>> http://JustNetCoalition.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 gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  5 12:31:27 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:31:27 -0800
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea
In-Reply-To: <ABDE185B-9629-4CB0-B4E6-340290C613BE@gmail.com>
References: <394A2ED1-6E70-4B33-8AEA-C45F7CBF277C@gmail.com> <ABDE185B-9629-4CB0-B4E6-340290C613BE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <070201d0576a$36096680$a21c3380$@gmail.com>

From: David Farber via ip [mailto:ip at listbox.com] 
Sent: March 5, 2015 7:01 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea

 

Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/> Report mistakes <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/contacts/letter/> 

Events <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/> / Official statement <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> 


Russia Disputed Against Removal of Crimean Domains in ICANN 


Published:
Feb. 11, 2015
Event type:
 <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> Official statement 
Directions:
 <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=298> Cooperation with ICAAN,
 <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=274> Internet regulation on behalf of global community
Regions:
The Republic of Crimea <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=The%20Republic%20of%20Crimea> 
Countries:
Russia <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Russia> ,
Singapore <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Singapore> 
Persons:

Print <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> Share <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> 

Singapore, February 11, 2015. — Julia Elanskaya, Deputy Director of Department on International Collaboration of Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications, made an official statement on 52nd meeting of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), opened at the beginning of the week in Singapore. She paid attention to recent decision of American registrar, cancelling domains, registered on the territory of Crimea.

Full text of the statement is presented below.

“We want to draw your attention to recent decision of American registrar. It informed its clients, located in a specific region, about cancellation of accounts, domains and their withdrawal starting from January 31, 2015. Registrar refers to trading limitations that don’t allow American companies to run a business with individuals and enterprises, located in Crimea.

Russia has always been against introduction of sanctions in ICT sphere, particularly, regarding the Internet.

Sanctions, especially those, that are imposed on the Internet users, must be considered as restriction of right of every person to receive and distribute information and ideas through mass media independently of state borders, as it is established in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This precedent contradicts with values of International meeting at the highest level on information society, especially with principles of using ICT for ensuring general access to information in accordance with Tunisian program on information society.[MG]  (presumably the WSIS Declaration).

We want to mention that this precedent shows real situation in sphere of Internet-governance, when one government unilaterally adopts measures, discriminating users rights on area basis. At the same time this government controls governance of domain name system throughout the world.

Such unilateral restrictions undermine universally multilaterally recognized principles and values and trust in open and interconnected information space. They can also damage development of Internet-governance mechanisms and lead to its fragmentation.

These restrictions also damage multilateral model of Internet-governance and clearly demonstrate its inefficiency. We suppose that it’s necessary to ensure more fair allocation of Internet-governance means based on international agreements between countries under the aegis of the United Nations.

Russian Federation encourages all interested parties of all countries refrain from blocking in the Internet, including blocking of domain names for political purposes and make efforts for enforcement Internet-users rights.
 

 


 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives  <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3> |  <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308> Modify Your Subscription |  <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150305100104:6AAC5E20-C348-11E4-929D-9D9C7F9AC2DC> Unsubscribe Now 

 <http://www.listbox.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/01b6d821/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD306.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/01b6d821/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Mar  5 12:39:35 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:39:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F887CA.9070004@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <54F84F09.1020507@itforchange.net> <54F887CA.9070004@apc.org>
Message-ID: <24D253B7-5156-4897-8470-9E4FDD3ACFFB@consensus.pro>

Anriette, I personally have always seen you act with the best of intentions and to try and produce the best outcome possible for the largest number of positions and perspectives. I'm grateful for it, this time, as before.

I honestly find it spectacularly unreasonable and unfair that after virtually every single conference where a multistakeholder statement is the outcome, CS people treat those from CS that fill the role that Anriette has just filled very poorly. Some few offer thanks, but inevitably the aether is filled with frankly nasty messages.

Those who don't have a voice - or who don't have enough of one - deserve far better.  

On 5 Mar 2015, at 17:43, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear Parminder
> 
> Did JNC include economic and social rights in the submission you made to
> the UNESCO study? I mean beforehand.
> 
> All I can say is that the addition of economic and social rights was
> made the afternoon when the statement was being finalised. I argued that
> it should be included but it was not. If there was more time I think
> that it would have been easy to include the reference to the ESCR treaty
> in the preamble, and in the text. But translators were demanding the
> text and time was up.
> 
> There were other things too that were argued which took time. The people
> who submitted content will know what made it and what did not.
> 
> Whether civil society organisations accept the statement is up to them.
> 
> I did not claim to represent civil society in this process.  I was also
> not the only civil society person on the committee. I truly did my best
> to try and make sure the text accommodated strong concerns and spoke
> with individuals from several governments and civil society
> organisations - including JNC - in an effort to do so.
> 
> APC has always emphasised economic, social and cultural rights in
> relation to the internet and will continue to do so.
> 
> The reason I said that adding 'democratic' was not an option was that on
> the first day during the open discussion of the text Richard proposed
> the text and several governments submitted comments to say that it is
> non-negotiable for them and that if it was added they would dissociate
> themselves with the document.
> 
> I shared this with Richard so that he had advance warning. The only way
> of changing that would probably have been to work with government
> delegations and convince them to argue for it.
> 
> I don't want to get into a long battle of words beyond this. Of course
> there are political issues at play that we need to be aware of and
> address. It is your view that JNC are the only people who are doing so.
> 
> I know that others, including APC, are also addressing these issues, in
> multiple forums and in multiple ways.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 05/03/2015 14:41, parminder wrote:
>> Dear Anriette
>> 
>> Respectfully, there sure can be justifications and justifications, but
>> there are also some solid facts that we must contend with.
>> 
>> The first fact here is about 'social, economic and cultural rights':
>> 
>> First about its cardinal importance - I cant see the 'access' pillar of
>> UNESCO's interest in IG without a social, economic and cultural rights
>> framing, it becomes something very different without that framing, which
>> btw is what both telcos and MNCs like facebook and google want. So,
>> there is nothing innocent about it. There is a big global political
>> struggle about what 'access' means in normative terms. (Even telcos
>> cited the 'access' issue in their opposition to net neutrality!) In
>> fact, I see even privacy framed in soc and eco rights framing becuase of
>> the key economic value of data today, and certainly ethics. I can keep
>> writing on this subject, but I am sure you understand. You might
>> remember that the framing of communication rights basically arose from
>> this issue - that negative rights do not suffice to enable people's
>> communicative power and equity, we need positive rights as well. Whereby
>> communications rights were framed as against just an exclusive accent on
>> freedom of expression. And of course UNESCO was at the centre of those
>> political struggles. Everyone knows that the US has always been solidly
>> against the eco/soc/cultural rights side of communicative systems, and
>> in Paris they (again) won, with implicit or explicit support of civil
>> society groups among others. This is a fact, and we must face it.
>> 
>> We just need to contend with the fact that eco, soc and cultural rights
>> are not mentioned in the document, even when civil and political rights
>> are mentioned, as well as the corresponding covenant. As you say
>> elsewhere in your email,  UN documents indeed have continuities of text,
>> earlier political struggles and so on. And so, the mistakes and loses of
>> this document will be taken forward. After WSIS, if was the first key IG
>> doc made in a UN body, and so the losses are huge.
>> 
>> In the circumstances, it is not just a matter of everyone being good and
>> nice to everyone one else here, there is a political struggle and in my
>> view a great political loss here. We need to know who always so well
>> remembers to put FoE and civil/ political rights and who forgets to put
>> economic and social rights, in framing communication/ information
>> issues. Who forgot in this particular case, and who ignored. You say,
>> the proposal to put eco and soc rights came in too late. We, as in JNC,
>> proposed when we saw the draft. We sure cannot propose earlier. But what
>> were the drafters doing - well perhaps they need to take more people who
>> are likely to remember this set of rights! These are real issues. These
>> cannot just be swept under the carpet because all of us should be nice
>> to all others of us. We need to know. And we need to be able to tell our
>> constituencies outside, to whom we are primarily responsible.
>> 
>> Also about the proposal to put this part coming in late, and drafters
>> wanting a short document,  tell me how much time and space it takes to
>> put a comma at the end of preambular para beginning with "Further
>> recalled.....  " and adding after ...Covenant on Civil and Political
>> rights just this - "....and the International Covenant on Social,
>> Economic and Cultural Rights". Especially when whole new points and
>> sentences have been added to the draft between the last plenary and the
>> final document! Did those present there as civil society even at that
>> stage when they discovered that soc and eco rights were missing really
>> take this issue up with full might? Did anyone there solidly back the
>> demand. I very much doubt - bec the proof is out there. Why did we not
>> fully put our foot down. After all we would only be asking what exists
>> in most UN doc on similar issues, and which was there prominently in the
>> WSIS documents.
>> 
>> I dont think we should put up excuses that the demand for putting in soc
>> and eco rights came in late, and UNESCO wanted a short doc, and so on.
>> This excuse is untenable, in a provable way as I show above. Other long
>> text were included, and much later.. If it is wrong, and an enormous
>> political loss, it is so, clearly and bluntly! We must accept it.
>> 
>> The second fact we must contend with is that some civil society people
>> there joined US and its allies to say 'democratic' has baggage, and all
>> possible references to 'democracy' were refused. And what I really find
>> somewhat shocking is that you are sympathetically explaining that view,
>> although in a most unconvincing manner. Dont you think multistakeholder
>> has baggage! Why did you not remove that term on the same logic. Do you
>> not know that there are parties that think even 'human rights' have
>> baggage. Would you accept such a logic?  Who decides what has baggage?
>> Does this also bespeaks a certain composition of civil society that was
>> more actively present and involved there. So,  should we now start
>> considering 'democratic' as a likely problematic term. Great progress we
>> are making! First one needed to fight to get democratic into the
>> NetMundial document in just one place when multistakeholder is there in
>> about 30 places. And then comes the meeting at UNESCO  - an hallowed UN
>> body - and here we are told that well in fact 'democratic' is
>> problematic and has baggage and so let it be completely out.
>> 
>> I dont understand you logic that in Tunis Agenda democratic is always
>> mentioned with multilateral and therefore is means multilateral . I
>> thought if a word is mentioned along with another one, it can be taken
>> that it means something different. At places, all three democratic,
>> multilateral and multistakeholder are mentioned together in TA. Does
>> that mean that each of these then is a code word for the other. This is
>> a very weak and unsustainable logic.
>> 
>> Meanwhile, you know that it is not as you say 'the editing group did
>> consider it seriously'. When Anita proposed putting 'democratic
>> dialogue' in a different place, in 5.1, such apparently was the depth of
>> antipathy to the term 'democratic' that the group quietly included
>> 'public dialogue' not touching the word 'democratic' even here, in a
>> largely 'innocent' usage. (This in fact was a good opportunity to
>> assuage those who were demanding the inclusion of the 'democratic term -
>> a democratic dialogue certainly cannot mean multilateral, or does it ?
>> But the fact that even this opportunity was not taken shows how solidly
>> the forces against democracy were entrenched. I simply do not know what
>> civil society persons on the inside were doing.) This really makes one
>> extremely alarmed, to see such studious exclusion of the word
>> 'democratic'. It is from this alarm that our extreme concern at what
>> happened in Paris is pouring out. And you want us to simply accept it as
>> if nothing happened and move on.
>> 
>> BTW, when you say,"It is a pity that 'democratic was not added, but it
>> was never really an option' , I do not fully understand. Why you say 'it
>> was never really an option'. That itself is alarming. Have we reached
>> such a stage that use of the term 'democratic' is no longer really an
>> option for global normative texts of IG'.  JNC has an analysis of what
>> is happening here, and we have held it for a long time, with pretty
>> accurate predictive value, as we see things unfolding like what happened
>> in Paris. We are not ready to be happy to move on. We intend to dig in
>> and fight. Social, economic and cultural rights must be restored as key
>> normative values for the communicative sphere of which the Internet is
>> today a central element. And governance in all areas, including the
>> Internet, will be democratic - that must be made clear. We will decry
>> any effort or move which goes against these, and if needed the actors
>> responsible. This is a political struggle, not a cocktail party.
>> 
>> There is more, but later.
>> 
>> And I do thank you for your report below.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday 05 March 2015 04:05 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>> 
>>> Just an explanation and some context.
>>> 
>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>>> 
>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>>> 
>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
>>> made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text
>>> from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved
>>> weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>>> 
>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
>>> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>>> 
>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
>>> discussion.
>>> 
>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an
>>> option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial
>>> statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I
>>> would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic
>>> However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why
>>> "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the
>>> word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
>>> every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that
>>> 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the
>>> importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
>>> in front of multistakeholder.
>>> 
>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
>>> the text.
>>> 
>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but
>>> because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>>> 
>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are
>>> full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
>>> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>>> 
>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert
>>> (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
>>> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
>>> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>>> 
>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
>>> number of requests for putting it in.
>>> 
>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
>>> this way.
>>> 
>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the
>>> early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity
>>> is illegitimate.
>>> 
>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents
>>> we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the
>>> losses.
>>> 
>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting
>>> it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south
>>> who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will,
>>> I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society,
>>> particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and
>>> influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
>>> 
>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
>>> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>>> 
>>> Anriette
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>>>> have global significance?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
>>>> JNC.
>>>> 
>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>>> 
>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
>>>> 
>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>>>> follows:
>>>> 
>>>>    Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>>>    Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>>>    appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>>>    Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>>> 
>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>>> 
>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>>>> democratic *and* participative.
>>>> 
>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
>>>> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>>> 
>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>>>> participative.
>>>> 
>>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
>>>> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
>>>> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>>> 
>>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>>> http://JustNetCoalition.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:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/7ee3e259/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Thu Mar  5 13:35:53 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:35:53 +0000
Subject: [governance] East Timor's ccTLD changed
In-Reply-To: <070201d0576a$36096680$a21c3380$@gmail.com>
References: <394A2ED1-6E70-4B33-8AEA-C45F7CBF277C@gmail.com>
 <ABDE185B-9629-4CB0-B4E6-340290C613BE@gmail.com>,<070201d0576a$36096680$a21c3380$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D86D4683-C000-4BD1-AF26-A111254A765A@ntu.edu.sg>

An interesting piece by Kieren McCarthy on the change from .tp to .tl.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/04/east_timor_was_officially_removed_from_the_internet_yesterday/

Regards,
Ang Peng Hwa

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/9e02cd49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD306.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: ~WRD306.jpg
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/9e02cd49/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  5 13:40:04 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:40:04 +0000
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?FW=3A_=5BIP=5D_Fwd=3A_International?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_effort_to_wrangle_t=27internet_from_NSA_fizzles_out_in_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?chaos_=95_The_Register?=
In-Reply-To: <C97AD014-DB32-4C88-BD86-00D72D4CC8AB@gmail.com>
References: <C97AD014-DB32-4C88-BD86-00D72D4CC8AB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c4569fa914214d2486af5984990a8020@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

FYI.

PS: And the 'told ya so' chorus begins in 5..4...3..2..1:
________________________________________
From: David Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 10:20 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Fwd: International effort to wrangle t'internet from NSA fizzles out in chaos • The Register

A bit of hype but some facts djf

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/04/netmundial_council_meeting_cancelled_again/

The launch of the ICANN-Brazil-led internet power grab dubbed NetMundial has been cancelled for a second time, raising questions over its continued existence.

NetMundial was dreamed up in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations of blanket global surveillance by Uncle Sam's NSA and the Brits' GCHQ. The governments of Brazil and other nations are so incensed by the spying, they want a new way of governing the internet – ideally, one without the US and UK ruling the realm like kings.

It is not going well.

The program's coordination council was supposed to meet for the first time in Costa Rica on 31 March to discuss a draft "terms of reference" drawn up from comments provided by the internet community.

However, following a distinct lack of interest that not only led to the comment period being extended twice but also saw around a quarter of commentators post hostile responses, the meeting has been cancelled.

Even the creation of the council itself was a struggle, with a number of organizations refusing to engage, and a small number of nominations submitted.

The problem lies in the fact that no one is sure why the initiative exists, with one representative noting: "It is difficult to suggest any of the principles as having a natural 'home' in the NetMundial Initiative as all of the issues mentioned already have 'homes' in various institutions and processes - and in most cases they have a global mandate for those issues."

Others were more blunt: "NMI's ICC [Coordination Council] does not seem to have any substantive role to play. Obvious lack of interest among CS [civil society], academia, and tech communities to submit nominations for ICC, and replies to this (extended deadline) consultation seem to confirm the previous assertion."

The March meeting cancellation follows an earlier cancellation in January. Initial plans were for the council to meet in Switzerland on 19 January, just ahead of the annual Davos conference run by one of the co-founders of the program, the World Economic Forum.

But following public rejection of the initiative by, among others, the Internet Society, Internet Architecture Board, US Chamber of Commerce and parts of civil society, the meeting was postponed to allow forpublic consultation on what it should actually do.

Bit of a draft in here
Since January, a subgroup of the council has been meeting weekly to develop the terms of reference from submitted comments. But minutes of those meetings have shown a split, with some council members arguing for developing and publishing a "terms of reference" (ToR) from what they have received, and others pointing out that the very small number of responses would make any such document meaningless.

"If we only have 25 replies/comments we can not be trying to claim global community support to do X, and that will just open the whole effort up to criticism," noted one council member at a meeting.

Even at its meeting last week, the council subgroup couldn't agree on the format of the terms of reference, or its content, or even its rationale for existing.

Reflecting the controversial nature of the program and the aggressive comments received, one subgroup member representing the European Commission's Andrus Ansip complained that the draft summary of comments was too "defensive." "The second page is about what we are not doing rather than what we are doing," he noted.

A key reason behind the decision to cancel the March meeting is believed to be the refusal of the US government to send its Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. "I would not recommend the US Secretary of Commerce attend the Costa Rica meeting based on our discussions so far," her representative told the group last month. "We have 19 comments with no analysis; this is not enough to have the Secretariat draft the ToR."

The involvement of Pritzker has been repeatedly used by the co-organizers to bolster the NetMundial Initiative's credibility following a highly critical reception from the internet governance community.

The initiative has never recovered from a botched launch back in November. Then, the three co-organizers – ICANN, Brazil's NIC.br and the World Economic Forum – announced they would give themselves permanent seats on the council along with two other permanent seats held for the technical community and the Internet Governance Forum.

That approach goes directly against the open and inclusive approach of internet bodies, and led us todescribe the initiative as a "UN Security Council for the internet." While the three co-organizers have taken their seats, the two other seats remain notably empty. ®

Tips and corrections


-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20150305102010:1A72B956-C34B-11E4-8EDA-B0999BF708B4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

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

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

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

From shawna at apc.org  Thu Mar  5 14:23:13 2015
From: shawna at apc.org (Shawna Finnegan)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:23:13 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>

Dear Michael,

While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the
discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your
question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of
'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.

In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been
that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various
multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it
is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support
our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively
engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council.

Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing
discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced
cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation
is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet governance:

"Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a means
to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance that
enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva
Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and
prosperous world.”

(from our submission:
http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf)

There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' over
a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC engages
where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.

Shawna

On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on
> by significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference
> to "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology
> of "multistakeholderism 
> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"
>
> 
and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of
> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite
> "demeaning" of all those who were in any way a party to this
> travesty.
> 
> 
> 
> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the 
> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and
> equally of the provenance of the funding support provided for the
> Civil Society component who were able to attend this event and thus
> provide the overall framework of legitimacy for this output
> document should I think raise alarm bells among any with a degree
> of independent concern for how normative structures are evolving
> (or "being evolved") in this sphere.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of 
> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its
> own normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
> 
> 
> 
> M
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette 
> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all
> 
> 
> 
> Just an explanation and some context.
> 
> 
> 
> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was
> to review comments on the draft statement and support the chair
> and secretariat in compiling drafts.
> 
> 
> 
> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of 
> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
> 
> 
> 
> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC
> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which
> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final
> draft).
> 
> 
> 
> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any 
> reason other than it came during the final session and the
> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked
> directly to the Study.
> 
> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to 
> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final
> study report rather than in the outcome statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of
> the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never
> really an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic
> to multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the
> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for
> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the
> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very
> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so
> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly
> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This
> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be
> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of
> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back 
> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having
> 'democratic'
> 
> in front of multistakeholder.
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for 
> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments')
> into the text.
> 
> 
> 
> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic
> multistakeholder', but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that
> they are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and
> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
> 
> 
> 
> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could
> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference
> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not
> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that 
> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously,
> but that the number of objections to this text were far greater
> than the number of requests for putting it in.
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated
> in this way.
> 
> 
> 
> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as 
> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in
> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of
> the government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that
> anonymity is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in
> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the
> gains vs. the losses.
> 
> 
> 
> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in
> the global south who will put issues that are important to us on
> its agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more
> people from civil society, particularly from developing countries,
> to learn, participate and influence internet-related debates with
> policy-makers.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really
> know what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive
> and they demean not only the work of the civil society
> organisations or individuals you name, but also the work - and what
> I believe to be the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
> 
> 
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
> 
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>> wrote:
> 
>> 
> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein
>>> <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> 
>>> wrote:
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others
>>>> on the
> 
>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social
>>>> and
> 
>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document
>>>> meant to
> 
>>>> have global significance?
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-t
>
>>>  urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
> 
>> 
> 
>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is
>> JNC's
> 
>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual
>> position of
> 
>> JNC.
> 
>> 
> 
>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> 
>> 
> 
>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
> 
>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human
>> right,
> 
>> even if there are countries where this is not currently
>> implemented
> 
>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be
>> democratic.
> 
>> 
> 
>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this
>> as
> 
>> follows:
> 
>> 
> 
>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
> 
>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
> 
>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of
>> the
> 
>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
> 
>> 
> 
>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism
>> is
> 
>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
> 
>> 
> 
>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global
>> governance
> 
>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our
>> foundational
> 
>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which
>> are
> 
>> democratic *and* participative.
> 
>> 
> 
>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims
>> is
> 
>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
> 
>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
> 
>> 
> 
>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
> 
>> participative.
> 
>> 
> 
>> Is that so hard to understand???
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an
>> earlier
> 
>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ...
>> the
> 
>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite
>> full
> 
>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response
>> (which
> 
>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
> 
>> 
> 
>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
> 
>> 
> 
>> Greetings,
> 
>> Norbert
> 
>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> 
>> http://JustNetCoalition.org
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
> 
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> 
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> 
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
>> 
> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> 
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> 
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> 
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
>> 
> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as 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 Mar  5 15:50:30 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:50:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
Message-ID: <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>

Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...

Just a couple of things... 

An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of democracy as a fundamental governance principle.

Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who signed on to this agreement.

And please be aware that this is not trivial...

The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy" as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?

The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means that the necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is this APC's preferred position?

So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others who are so blithely jumping on the MS bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their own normative structures...?

Best,

M


-----Original Message-----
From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org] 
Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Dear Michael,

While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.

In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council.

Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet governance:

"Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world.”

(from our submission:
http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf)

There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.

Shawna

On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by 
> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to 
> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of 
> "multistakeholderism 
> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"
>
> 
and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of 
> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning" 
> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
> 
> 
> 
> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the 
> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally 
> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil 
> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide 
> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I 
> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent concern 
> for how normative structures are evolving (or "being evolved") in this 
> sphere.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of 
> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own 
> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
> 
> 
> 
> M
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette 
> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting 
> the Dots Conference"
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all
> 
> 
> 
> Just an explanation and some context.
> 
> 
> 
> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to 
> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and 
> secretariat in compiling drafts.
> 
> 
> 
> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of 
> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
> 
> 
> 
> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard 
> made several editorial suggestions which improved the
> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly 
> improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
> 
> 
> 
> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any 
> reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat 
> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the 
> Study.
> 
> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to 
> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study 
> report rather than in the outcome statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the 
> discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really 
> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to 
> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the 
> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for 
> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning 
> of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular 
> angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the 
> Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly linked with the word 
> "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This means that 
> people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be used to 
> diminish the recognition given to the importance of multistakeholder 
> participation, and take the debate back intergovernmental oversight of 
> IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
> 
> in front of multistakeholder.
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for 
> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into 
> the text.
> 
> 
> 
> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', 
> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they 
> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political 
> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
> 
> 
> 
> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could 
> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to 
> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find 
> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that 
> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but 
> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the 
> number of requests for putting it in.
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in 
> this way.
> 
> 
> 
> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as 
> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in 
> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the 
> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that 
> anonymity is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in 
> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains 
> vs. the losses.
> 
> 
> 
> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the 
> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its 
> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people 
> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn, 
> participate and influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know 
> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they 
> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or 
> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the 
> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
> 
> 
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
> 
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>> wrote:
> 
>> 
> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> 
>>> wrote:
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
> 
>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
> 
>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
> 
>>>> have global significance?
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-
>>> t
>
>>>  urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
> 
>> 
> 
>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
> 
>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position 
>> of
> 
>> JNC.
> 
>> 
> 
>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> 
>> 
> 
>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
> 
>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
> 
>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
> 
>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be 
>> democratic.
> 
>> 
> 
>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
> 
>> follows:
> 
>> 
> 
>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
> 
>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
> 
>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
> 
>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
> 
>> 
> 
>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
> 
>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
> 
>> 
> 
>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global 
>> governance
> 
>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
> 
>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
> 
>> democratic *and* participative.
> 
>> 
> 
>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
> 
>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
> 
>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
> 
>> 
> 
>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
> 
>> participative.
> 
>> 
> 
>> Is that so hard to understand???
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
> 
>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ...
>> the
> 
>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full
> 
>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response 
>> (which
> 
>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
> 
>> 
> 
>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
> 
>> 
> 
>> Greetings,
> 
>> Norbert
> 
>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> 
>> http://JustNetCoalition.org
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
> 
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> 
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> 
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
>> 
> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> 
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> 
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> 
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
>> 
> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You 
> received this message as 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 shawna at apc.org  Thu Mar  5 17:22:28 2015
From: shawna at apc.org (Shawna Finnegan)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:22:28 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael,

Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a global
governance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?

I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US
government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing
global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying
societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a
paradigm.

Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of
democratic pluralism. Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder
processes in much the same way as democratic processes.

Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am
surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional civil
society grouping to shun an organization that did not actively endorse
democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental
principle. Democracy is a system of government. In practice, that
system has been used as a tool to placate us and legitimize powerful
interests.

I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations
now, even if through non-action, will have significant consequences
long-term. And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out
of negotiations. Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an
important discussion to have.

Shawna

On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
> 
> Just a couple of things...
> 
> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its
> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have
> been trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as
> a qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge,
> to one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in
> the context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion
> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of
> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
> 
> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear
> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of
> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a
> clear indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who
> signed on to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus
> where there is a clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred
> option for those who signed on to this agreement.
> 
> And please be aware that this is not trivial...
> 
> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they
> see MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the
> wide variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in
> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of
> "democracy" as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a
> pre-figuration of what we can expect in the range of other areas
> requiring global decision making in the future. Is this APC's
> preferred position?
> 
> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of
> governance by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others
> means that the necessary explorations of how democratic governance
> can most effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not
> completely ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and
> the 1%. Again is this APC's preferred position?
> 
> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through
> non-action rather than action will contribute to very significant
> consequences in the longer term and again I repeat my question --
> "has APC (and others who are so blithely jumping on the MS
> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of
> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their
> own normative structures...?
> 
> Best,
> 
> M
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan
> [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael
> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at
> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> Dear Michael,
> 
> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the
> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to
> your question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour
> notions of 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
> 
> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been
> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various
> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether
> it is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we
> support our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies,
> and actively engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN
> Human Rights Council.
> 
> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing
> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced
> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder
> participation is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
> governance:
> 
> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a
> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet
> governance that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from
> the Geneva Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful,
> just and prosperous world.”
> 
> (from our submission: 
> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf)
>
>  There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC
> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
> 
> Shawna
> 
> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on
>> by significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference
>> to "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology
>> of "multistakeholderism 
>> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"
>>
>>
>
>> 
and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of
>>  space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite
>> "demeaning" of all those who were in any way a party to this
>> travesty.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the 
>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and
>> equally of the provenance of the funding support provided for the
>> Civil Society component who were able to attend this event and
>> thus provide the overall framework of legitimacy for this output
>> document should I think raise alarm bells among any with a degree
>> of independent concern for how normative structures are evolving
>> (or "being evolved") in this sphere.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of 
>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its
>> own normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: 
>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of
>> Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To: 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Just an explanation and some context.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was
>> to review comments on the draft statement and support the chair
>> and secretariat in compiling drafts.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority
>> of text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and
>> onsite.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC
>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the 
>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which
>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final
>> draft).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for
>> any reason other than it came during the final session and the
>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked
>> directly to the Study.
>> 
>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and
>> to UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final
>> study report rather than in the outcome statement.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of
>> the discussion.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never
>> really an option. I personally, and APC, support linking
>> democratic to multistakeholder and we were happy that this
>> happened in the NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text
>> below (thanks for that Norbert) I would like to find a way to
>> make sure that the meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG
>> context there is a very particular angle to why "democratic
>> multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word
>> "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
>> every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel
>> that 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given
>> to the importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the
>> debate back intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to
>> having 'democratic'
>> 
>> in front of multistakeholder.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
>>  reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments')
>> into the text.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic
>> multistakeholder', but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that
>> they are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and
>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could
>>  insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a
>> reference to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but
>> I could not find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and
>> warned him that unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not
>> be included.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously,
>> but that the number of objections to this text were far greater
>> than the number of requests for putting it in.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are
>> negotiated in this way.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
>>  fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression
>> in the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence
>> of the government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states
>> that anonymity is illegitimate.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in 
>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the
>> gains vs. the losses.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. 
>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in
>> the global south who will put issues that are important to us on
>> its agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more
>> people from civil society, particularly from developing
>> countries, to learn, participate and influence internet-related
>> debates with policy-makers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really
>> know what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive
>> and they demean not only the work of the civil society
>> organisations or individuals you name, but also the work - and
>> what I believe to be the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>> 
>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein
>>>> <gurstein at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> 
>>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others
>>>>> on the
>> 
>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and
>>>>> "social and
>> 
>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document
>>>>> meant to
>> 
>>>>> have global significance?
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-
>>>>
>>>> 
t
>> 
>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is
>>> JNC's
>> 
>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual
>>> position of
>> 
>>> JNC.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>> 
>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human
>>> right,
>> 
>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently
>>> implemented
>> 
>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be 
>>> democratic.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this
>>> as
>> 
>>> follows:
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>> 
>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>> 
>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of
>>> the
>> 
>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which
>>> multistakeholderism is
>> 
>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global 
>>> governance
>> 
>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our
>>> foundational
>> 
>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet
>>> which are
>> 
>>> democratic *and* participative.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy
>>> claims is
>> 
>>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of
>>> government-led
>> 
>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>> 
>>> participative.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an
>>> earlier
>> 
>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed
>>> ... the
>> 
>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be
>>> quite full
>> 
>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response
>>>  (which
>> 
>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Greetings,
>> 
>>> Norbert
>> 
>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>> 
>>> http://JustNetCoalition.org
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> 
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> 
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> 
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> 
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> 
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> 
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>  received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=L6ab
-----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 jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Mar  5 18:08:43 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:08:43 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>

On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:
> 
> Neither Richard Hill, yourself nor the U.S. government can redefine the meaning of terms like "democracy," "social rights" and "economic rights." If you think that Richard's proposals to achieve "democracy" are wrong, you're free to say so. Many of us thought the name "German Democratic Republic" absurd. East Germany was nothing like my idea of democracy. That didn't negate the meaning of the word "democracy." Just because an authoritarian state misuses the term doesn't make the idea invalid.

Well, I fully agree.  I wasn't the one who started propagating the idea that multi-stakeholderism and democracy are mutually exclusive.  I don't believe that they are; on the contrary; multi-stakeholder processes aim to deepen democracy.  In particular, contrary to JNC assertions, multi-stakeholder Internet governance is not about giving companies any additional power to write the rules by which they are governed. Companies are already doing that quite nicely, thank you (in non-multi-stakeholder fora such as TPP and many others). Rather, it's about evolving better mechanisms for incorporating the viewpoints of all affected stakeholders into the development of Internet policies in a balanced way. The biggest impact will be on those who aren't currently being heard; such as those who aren't a company's customers, shareholders or advertisers (but are affected by its decisions), those who don't vote for or lobby a government (but do feel the impacts of its laws), and those who don't otherwise have a voice on the international stage (such as border-crossing grassroots networks, and citizens of repressive states).

> There are many ways to come closer to democracy beyond the statist suggestions you attribute to the people you disagree with here. For example, Net Mundial created an initial board with 3 Africans. 3 Asians, 3 Latin Americans, 3 North Americans and Three Europeans, as well as a few self-appointed initiators.  That's far from representative democracy but it's much closer than most other groups making rules for the Internet. 

Again, I really couldn't agree more!

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/045f0498/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  5 18:20:13 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:20:13 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
Message-ID: <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>

Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in discursive rather than declarative mode...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org] 
Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

 

Michael,

 

Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a global governance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?

 

[MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite unclear as to which of the variety of stakeholder models is being proposed at any particular time or in any particular context, which of course is one of the major sources of hesitation that I have with these kinds of proposals.  Before entering into a decision making process and particularly one that will have real and potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the rules of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are they accountable to and how, what overall structures of accountability will be in place, what decision making rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so on.   Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it is rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into the meme and then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: what will actually occur in a specific decision making context.  My own experiences in attempting to participate in MS processes as evidenced in my blog give some indication at a micro-level of what is involved.

 

Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will.  My observation is that MS processes do not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involved specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably different interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kinds.  My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or stress it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) and proceed as though nothing had occurred – in this way they are achieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to divergent positions and interests.

 

Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of effective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the absence of some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing accountability, transparency etc.  In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of value.  Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil society (or government such as those found in many LDC’s for that matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and dominant interests.

 

 

I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a paradigm.

 

[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better… 

 

 

Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic pluralism. 

 

[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain.

 

 

Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way as democratic processes.

 

[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the possibility of rectification.  With legitimized control by powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification.  Those interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize their individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a phone number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountability and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic decision making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be a very good social trade off to be making.

 

Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping to shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system of government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate us and legitimize powerful interests.

 

[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and structures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean that the aspiration of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly rejected in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) elites.

 

I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, even if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.

 

[MG] yes..

 

BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance.  Is this the official position of APC?

 

M

 

Shawna

 

On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...

> 

> Just a couple of things...

> 

> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its 

> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been 

> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a 

> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to 

> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the 

> context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion

> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of 

> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.

> 

> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear 

> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of 

> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear 

> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on 

> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a 

> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who 

> signed on to this agreement.

> 

> And please be aware that this is not trivial...

> 

> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see 

> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide 

> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in 

> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy" 

> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of 

> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global 

> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?

> 

> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance 

> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means that the 

> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most 

> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely 

> ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is 

> this APC's preferred position?

> 

> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action 

> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in 

> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others 

> who are so blithely jumping on the MS

> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of 

> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their 

> own normative structures...?

> 

> Best,

> 

> M

> 

> 

> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan 

> [ <mailto:shawna at apc.org> mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael 

> Gurstein Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 

>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at 

> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> Dear Michael,

> 

> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the 

> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your 

> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of 

> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.

> 

> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been 

> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various 

> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it 

> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support 

> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively 

> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights 

> Council.

> 

> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing 

> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced 

> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation 

> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet

> governance:

> 

> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a 

> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance 

> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva 

> Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and 

> prosperous world.”

> 

> (from our submission: 

>  <http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf

> )

> 

>  There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'

> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC 

> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.

> 

> Shawna

> 

> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by 

>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to 

>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of 

>> "multistakeholderism 

>> < <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/> https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"

>> 

>> 

> 

>> 

and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social

>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of  

>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning" 

>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the 

>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally 

>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil 

>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide 

>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I 

>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent 

>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being 

>> evolved") in this sphere.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of 

>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own 

>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> M

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> -----Original Message----- From: 

>>  <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net

>> [ <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette 

>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:

>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting 

>> the Dots Conference"

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Dear all

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Just an explanation and some context.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to 

>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and 

>> secretariat in compiling drafts.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of 

>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC 

>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the

>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which 

>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any 

>> reason other than it came during the final session and the 

>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked 

>> directly to the Study.

>> 

>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to 

>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study 

>> report rather than in the outcome statement.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the 

>> discussion.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really 

>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to 

>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the 

>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for 

>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the 

>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very 

>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so 

>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly 

>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This 

>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be 

>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of 

>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back 

>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 

>> 'democratic'

>> 

>> in front of multistakeholder.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for  

>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into 

>> the text.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', 

>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they 

>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and 

>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could  

>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference 

>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not 

>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that 

>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but 

>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the 

>> number of requests for putting it in.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated 

>> in this way.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as  

>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in 

>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the 

>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that 

>> anonymity is illegitimate.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in 

>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the 

>> gains vs. the losses.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. 

>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the 

>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its 

>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people 

>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn, 

>> participate and influence internet-related debates with 

>> policy-makers.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know 

>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they 

>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or 

>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be 

>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Anriette

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:

>> 

>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100

>> 

>>> Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>

>>> wrote:

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com

>> < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>

>> 

>>>> wrote:

>> 

>>>>> 

>> 

>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the

>> 

>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and

>> 

>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to

>> 

>>>>> have global significance?

>> 

>>>> 

>> 

>>>> 

>> 

>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:

>> 

>>>> 

>> 

>>>>  <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to

>>>> -

>>>> 

>>>> 

t

>> 

>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is 

>>> JNC's

>> 

>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position 

>>> of

>> 

>>> JNC.

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be

>> 

>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human 

>>> right,

>> 

>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented

>> 

>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be 

>>> democratic.

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as

>> 

>>> follows:

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to

>> 

>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish

>> 

>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the

>> 

>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is

>> 

>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global 

>>> governance

>> 

>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational

>> 

>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are

>> 

>>> democratic *and* participative.

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is

>> 

>>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led

>> 

>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*

>> 

>>> participative.

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> Is that so hard to understand???

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier

>> 

>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the

>> 

>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite 

>>> full

>> 

>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response  

>>> (which

>> 

>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>>  <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> Greetings,

>> 

>>> Norbert

>> 

>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition

>> 

>>>  <http://JustNetCoalition.org> http://JustNetCoalition.org

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> ____________________________________________________________

>> 

>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>> 

>>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

>> 

>>> To be removed from the list, visit:

>> 

>>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>>> For all other list information and functions, see:

>> 

>>>  <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

>> 

>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>> 

>>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

>> 

>>> 

>> 

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

>> 

>>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> ____________________________________________________________ You  

>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>>  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, 

>> visit:  <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

>> 

> 

> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1

 

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+NckAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKwg8L/iI+89MYOM+3ZTorMwdy4lYs

uc6P2Kw7uVJt1Soqmk5GqsRp4UQAUUAa4DI/GwjHVf6kFd1iH0y6xle2bAMckv7N

YZkxCHbs7mo2lmzGf/rXK82RitCvsb39o2b3QavcLiETQMkpDgYebeaOCNftz/vY

uRVUioALPdwAYZQTp7SwI5d6h2WFzzPKkDyJUx4AysCHGRomVV4v0GOeOiOT2lBN

coyCfZInGmupR6nfmlxW+MeTRscmueAKBWpu3nbDoA1PU4wurxGVfq/u5vbD88Mo

VqNBJEit7ctS41CQjTM0/f2Yu2LpbhWcR4Ck8dJBKcQbeL7YtPiec5dNbVcnjdc6

mf6w4xfvC5o5ka9w9DSAJWKIwWxYR12yoUUZxwtfHzGVESNvudYNxUcRt1pLkrd8

H5+Z/mF/E0yHfiDObVIbVWat30fMgGpPbVKFHahp+Jln9fTGCkxmxxztGGIofh4V

Ix9G7lqt+pksPwDcU03p78DorIPavz1IhFjlSAybvQ==

=L6ab

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/56c267c9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Mar  5 18:23:57 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:23:57 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
Message-ID: <1A63AFEA-B5A9-49B4-96F7-27BA2A7348C1@eff.org>

On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:46 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
> JNC.
> 
> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> 
> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.

Notwithstanding the obvious circularity of that statement, if this means that you no longer support para 35 of the Tunis Agenda, and that Parminder misspoke when he supported it, then it's good to have finally established that.  Nonetheless, Anriette has effectively confirmed, with her note of the negotiations, my reading of the meaning of the text for which you are pushing in UN circles.  So will you be backing away from that text now, too?

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  5 19:02:31 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:02:31 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <1A63AFEA-B5A9-49B4-96F7-27BA2A7348C1@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <1A63AFEA-B5A9-49B4-96F7-27BA2A7348C1@eff.org>
Message-ID: <534691E5-F3FC-4B0F-8077-8234D5CBF815@eff.org>

On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
> Notwithstanding the obvious circularity of that statement, if this means that you no longer support para 35 of the Tunis Agenda, and that Parminder misspoke when he supported it, then it's good to have finally established that.  Nonetheless, Anriette has effectively confirmed, with her note of the negotiations, my reading of the meaning of the text for which you are pushing in UN circles.  So will you be backing away from that text now, too?

Also I should point out that I did clarify personally with Richard Hill while I was in Paris that his interpretation of "democratic" and "public policy" referred to laws and treaties passed by states; when I contended that that needn't be the case and that public policies can be crafted by other means, he disagreed with me on that quite specifically.  This also accords with Anriette's report of how your language was being interpreted.  So it's hard for you to write my post off as a misinterpretation.  If it is true that you and/or other members of JNC didn't realise that the language you were advocating for was synonymous with multilateralism, then I'm afraid that you are being played.  (Though a number of us suspected that all along.)

PS. For clarity, as per my previous response to Dave Burstein, this doesn't, of course, mean that democratic *should* mean multilateral, or would mean that outside of a UN text negotiation.

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  5 22:47:29 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 22:47:29 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
	<54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
	<04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
	<54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
	<092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
	<54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21753.9041.764057.805257@world.std.com>


Yes, yes, yes, for all the talk I tend to agree with Michael
Gurstein's summary below, msism appears to be a bit of a "pig in a
poke" as the expression goes (an offer to buy something in a bag which
you can't look into, only guess that something [good] is in there.)

Further, from some of my observation it seems disturbing even on the
surface. For one thing there's no indication of how a conflict of
interest is handled. Worse, a conflict of interest seems to become a
legitimate interest and enfranchised equal.

Fully admitting my understanding may be imperfect even if just because
understanding may be impossible when a concept is ill-defined the more
I hear the more I can't help but think that this is an attempt to
codify a system we have developed without really any rules or
regulation in the United States Congress.

We call it a system of, by, and for the lobbyists.

Anyone may lobby the US Congress of course, it is one of the most open
processes in the world. It does tend to favor oil lobbyists and auto
lobbyists and drug manufacturer lobbyists etc but nonetheless if you
wish you may compete for attention as a homeless lobbyist or single
mother lobbyist (e.g.) and good luck to you! But nothing prevents such
participation and indeed many try. It is democracy red in tooth and
claw!

There is one critical difference, however. Lobbyists must indirect
through congressional representatives who are actually elected by
their constituents, one person one vote.

This system seems to eliminate that annoying middleman (middleperson?)
and just lets the lobbyists introduce and vote on legislation directly
as interest, i.e., stakeholder, groups.

I am skeptical of everything I wrote above because surely this can't
be the case -- everyone here is far too intelligent to want to
reinvent the notoriously interested US lobby system as an actual
governing structure -- so please disabuse me of these silly notions!

From: "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
>Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in discursive=
> rather than declarative mode...
>
>=20
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org]=20
>Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM
>To: Michael Gurstein
>Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting t=
>he Dots Conference"
>
>=20
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Hash: SHA1
>
>=20
>
>Michael,
>
>=20
>
>Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a global gover=
>nance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?
>
>=20
>
>[MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite unclear as to w=
>hich of the variety of stakeholder models is being proposed at any particul=
>ar time or in any particular context, which of course is one of the major s=
>ources of hesitation that I have with these kinds of proposals.  Before ent=
>ering into a decision making process and particularly one that will have re=
>al and potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the ru=
>les of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are they account=
>able to and how, what overall structures of accountability will be in place=
>, what decision making rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so =
>on.   Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it is=
> rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into the meme an=
>d then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: what will actually occ=
>ur in a specific decision making context.  My own experiences in attempting=
> to participate in MS processes as evidenced in my blog give some indicatio=
>n at a micro-level of what is involved.
>
>=20
>
>Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they=
> will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditio=
>ns of presumed harmony and good will.  My observation is that MS processes =
>do not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major proble=
>m given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involv=
>ed specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably d=
>ifferent interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kin=
>ds.  My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or str=
>ess it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged=
> insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) an=
>d proceed as though nothing had occurred =E2=80=93 in this way they are ach=
>ieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflec=
>ts nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling =
>(and satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to=
> divergent positions and interests.
>
>=20
>
>Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by e=
>lites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most =
>cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of eff=
>ective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites=
> since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these processes=
> in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the absence of =
>some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing accountability,=
> transparency etc.  In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking abo=
>ut decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of do=
>llars of value.  Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil s=
>ociety (or government such as those found in many LDC=E2=80=99s for that ma=
>tter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be de=
>ployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and domin=
>ant interests.
>
>=20
>
>=20
>
>I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government=
> (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has b=
>een violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stak=
>eholder' started to look like a paradigm.
>
>=20
>
>[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts =
>to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tos=
>sing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better=E2=
>=80=A6=20
>
>=20
>
>=20
>
>Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic =
>pluralism.=20
>
>=20
>
>[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the =E2=80=9Cdemo=
>cratic=E2=80=9D comes in=E2=80=A6 perhaps you could explain.
>
>=20
>
>=20
>
>Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way=
> as democratic processes.
>
>=20
>
>[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the p=
>ossibility of rectification.  With legitimized control by powerful (corpora=
>te) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification.  Tho=
>se interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize th=
>eir individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my gover=
>nment, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired =
>ends =E2=80=93 how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or=E2=80=A6 for =
>Google I can=E2=80=99t even find a phone number let alone how I might possi=
>bly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree tha=
>t we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountabil=
>ity and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic d=
>ecision making=E2=80=94but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have =
>been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an=
> undefined =E2=80=9Cpig in a poke=E2=80=9D doesn=E2=80=99t seem to me to be=
> a very good social trade off to be making.
>
>=20
>
>Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to=
> read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping t=
>o shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundame=
>ntal principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system o=
>f government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate u=
>s and legitimize powerful interests.
>
>=20
>
>[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and struc=
>tures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. =
>Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or b=
>een misused or misdirected but that doesn=E2=80=99t mean that the aspiratio=
>n of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is=
> not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly reject=
>ed in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) e=
>lites.
>
>=20
>
>I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, e=
>ven if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. An=
>d I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Pe=
>rhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
>
>=20
>
>[MG] yes..
>
>=20
>
>BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as a=
>n appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance.=
>  Is this the official position of APC?
>
>=20
>
>M
>
>=20
>
>Shawna
>
>=20
>
>On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
>
>>=20
>
>> Just a couple of things...
>
>>=20
>
>> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its=20
>
>> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been=20
>
>> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a=20
>
>> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to=20
>
>> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the=20
>
>> context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion
>
>> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of=20
>
>> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
>
>>=20
>
>> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear=20
>
>> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of=20
>
>> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear=20
>
>> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on=20
>
>> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a=20
>
>> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who=20
>
>> signed on to this agreement.
>
>>=20
>
>> And please be aware that this is not trivial...
>
>>=20
>
>> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see=20
>
>> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide=20
>
>> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in=20
>
>> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy"=20
>
>> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of=20
>
>> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global=20
>
>> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
>
>>=20
>
>> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance=20
>
>> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means that the=20
>
>> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most=20
>
>> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely=20
>
>> ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is=20
>
>> this APC's preferred position?
>
>>=20
>
>> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action=20
>
>> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in=20
>
>> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others=20
>
>> who are so blithely jumping on the MS
>
>> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
>
>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their=20
>
>> own normative structures...?
>
>>=20
>
>> Best,
>
>>=20
>
>> M
>
>>=20
>
>>=20
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan=20
>
>> [ <mailto:shawna at apc.org> mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:2=
>3 AM To: Michael=20
>
>> Gurstein Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbit=
>s.net;=20
>
>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sub=
>ject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at=20
>
>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>>=20
>
>> Dear Michael,
>
>>=20
>
>> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the=20
>
>> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your=20
>
>> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of=20
>
>> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
>
>>=20
>
>> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been=20
>
>> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various=20
>
>> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it=20
>
>> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support=20
>
>> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively=20
>
>> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights=20
>
>> Council.
>
>>=20
>
>> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing=20
>
>> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced=20
>
>> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation=20
>
>> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
>
>> governance:
>
>>=20
>
>> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a=20
>
>> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance=20
>
>> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva=20
>
>> Declaration, for =E2=80=9Cthe attainment of a more peaceful, just and=20
>
>> prosperous world.=E2=80=9D
>
>>=20
>
>> (from our submission:=20
>
>>  <http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf>=
> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf
>
>> )
>
>>=20
>
>>  There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
>
>> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC=20
>
>> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
>
>>=20
>
>> Shawna
>
>>=20
>
>> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by=20
>
>>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to=20
>
>>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of=20
>
>>> "multistakeholderism=20
>
>>> < <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-=
>neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/> https://gurstein.wordpress.=
>com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-interne=
>t-governance/>"
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
>
>>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of=20=20
>
>>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning"=20
>
>>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the=20
>
>>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally=20
>
>>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil=20
>
>>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide=20
>
>>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I=20
>
>>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent=20
>
>>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being=20
>
>>> evolved") in this sphere.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
>
>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own=20
>
>>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> M
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> -----Original Message----- From:=20
>
>>>  <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits-request at lists.bes=
>tbits.net
>
>>> [ <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits-request at l=
>ists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette=20
>
>>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
>
>>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc=
>:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>
>>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting=20
>
>>> the Dots Conference"
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> Dear all
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> Just an explanation and some context.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to=20
>
>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and=20
>
>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of=20
>
>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC=20
>
>>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
>
>>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which=20
>
>>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any=20
>
>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the=20
>
>>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked=20
>
>>> directly to the Study.
>
>>>=20
>
>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to=20
>
>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study=20
>
>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the=20
>
>>> discussion.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really=20
>
>>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to=20
>
>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the=20
>
>>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for=20
>
>>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the=20
>
>>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very=20
>
>>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so=20
>
>>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly=20
>
>>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This=20
>
>>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be=20
>
>>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of=20
>
>>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back=20
>
>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having=20
>
>>> 'democratic'
>
>>>=20
>
>>> in front of multistakeholder.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for=20=20
>
>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into=20
>
>>> the text.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder',=20
>
>>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they=20
>
>>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and=20
>
>>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could=20=20
>
>>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference=20
>
>>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not=20
>
>>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that=20
>
>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but=20
>
>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the=20
>
>>> number of requests for putting it in.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated=20
>
>>> in this way.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as=20=20
>
>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in=20
>
>>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the=20
>
>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that=20
>
>>> anonymity is illegitimate.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in=20
>
>>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the=20
>
>>> gains vs. the losses.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.=20
>
>>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the=20
>
>>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its=20
>
>>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people=20
>
>>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn,=20
>
>>> participate and influence internet-related debates with=20
>
>>> policy-makers.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know=20
>
>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they=20
>
>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or=20
>
>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be=20
>
>>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> Anriette
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>=
> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>
>>> < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>>> have global significance?
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>>  <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to>=
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to
>
>>>>> -
>
>>>>>=20
>
>>>>>=20
>
>t
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is=20
>
>>>> JNC's
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position=20
>
>>>> of
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> JNC.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human=20
>
>>>> right,
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be=20
>
>>>> democratic.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> follows:
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global=20
>
>>>> governance
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> democratic *and* participative.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> our goal, which he describes as =E2=80=9Climited type of government-led
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> rulemaking=E2=80=9D. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> participative.
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite=20
>
>>>> full
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response=20=20
>
>>>> (which
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>  <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm> http://justnetcoali=
>tion.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> Greetings,
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> Norbert
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>  <http://JustNetCoalition.org> http://JustNetCoalition.org
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>
>>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcauc=
>us.org>
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubs=
>cribing
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>  <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/=
>info/governance
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>> Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t> http:/=
>/translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>>>=20
>
>>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>>=20
>
>>> ____________________________________________________________ You=20=20
>
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>>>  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To un=
>subscribe or change your settings,=20
>
>>> visit:  <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestb=
>its.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>>>=20
>
>>=20
>
>>=20
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>Version: GnuPG v1
>
>=20
>
>iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+NckAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKwg8L/iI+89MYOM+3ZTorMwdy4lYs
>
>uc6P2Kw7uVJt1Soqmk5GqsRp4UQAUUAa4DI/GwjHVf6kFd1iH0y6xle2bAMckv7N
>
>YZkxCHbs7mo2lmzGf/rXK82RitCvsb39o2b3QavcLiETQMkpDgYebeaOCNftz/vY
>
>uRVUioALPdwAYZQTp7SwI5d6h2WFzzPKkDyJUx4AysCHGRomVV4v0GOeOiOT2lBN
>
>coyCfZInGmupR6nfmlxW+MeTRscmueAKBWpu3nbDoA1PU4wurxGVfq/u5vbD88Mo
>
>VqNBJEit7ctS41CQjTM0/f2Yu2LpbhWcR4Ck8dJBKcQbeL7YtPiec5dNbVcnjdc6
>
>mf6w4xfvC5o5ka9w9DSAJWKIwWxYR12yoUUZxwtfHzGVESNvudYNxUcRt1pLkrd8
>
>H5+Z/mF/E0yHfiDObVIbVWat30fMgGpPbVKFHahp+Jln9fTGCkxmxxztGGIofh4V
>
>Ix9G7lqt+pksPwDcU03p78DorIPavz1IhFjlSAybvQ=3D=3D
>
>=3DL6ab
>
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
        -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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Thu Mar  5 23:04:06 2015
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:34:06 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <21753.9041.764057.805257@world.std.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>	<54F83172.8080209@apc.org>	<04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>	<54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>	<092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>	<54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <21753.9041.764057.805257@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <54F92736.9060604@ITforChange.net>

a thought provoking definition of MSism -  system of, by, and for the 
lobbyists (and if I may add + fronts for the lobbyists + few innocents)

Guru

On Friday 06 March 2015 09:17 AM, Barry Shein wrote:

> Yes, yes, yes, for all the talk I tend to agree with Michael
> Gurstein's summary below, msism appears to be a bit of a "pig in a
> poke" as the expression goes (an offer to buy something in a bag which
> you can't look into, only guess that something [good] is in there.)
>
> Further, from some of my observation it seems disturbing even on the
> surface. For one thing there's no indication of how a conflict of
> interest is handled. Worse, a conflict of interest seems to become a
> legitimate interest and enfranchised equal.
>
> Fully admitting my understanding may be imperfect even if just because
> understanding may be impossible when a concept is ill-defined the more
> I hear the more I can't help but think that this is an attempt to
> codify a system we have developed without really any rules or
> regulation in the United States Congress.
>
> We call it a system of, by, and for the lobbyists.
>
> Anyone may lobby the US Congress of course, it is one of the most open
> processes in the world. It does tend to favor oil lobbyists and auto
> lobbyists and drug manufacturer lobbyists etc but nonetheless if you
> wish you may compete for attention as a homeless lobbyist or single
> mother lobbyist (e.g.) and good luck to you! But nothing prevents such
> participation and indeed many try. It is democracy red in tooth and
> claw!
>
> There is one critical difference, however. Lobbyists must indirect
> through congressional representatives who are actually elected by
> their constituents, one person one vote.
>
> This system seems to eliminate that annoying middleman (middleperson?)
> and just lets the lobbyists introduce and vote on legislation directly
> as interest, i.e., stakeholder, groups.
>
> I am skeptical of everything I wrote above because surely this can't
> be the case -- everyone here is far too intelligent to want to
> reinvent the notoriously interested US lobby system as an actual
> governing structure -- so please disabuse me of these silly notions!
>
> From: "Michael Gurstein"<gurstein at gmail.com>
>> Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in discursive=
>> rather than declarative mode...
>>
>> =20
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org]=20
>> Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM
>> To: Michael Gurstein
>> Cc:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting t=
>> he Dots Conference"
>>
>> =20
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a global gover=
>> nance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite unclear as to w=
>> hich of the variety of stakeholder models is being proposed at any particul=
>> ar time or in any particular context, which of course is one of the major s=
>> ources of hesitation that I have with these kinds of proposals.  Before ent=
>> ering into a decision making process and particularly one that will have re=
>> al and potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the ru=
>> les of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are they account=
>> able to and how, what overall structures of accountability will be in place=
>> , what decision making rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so =
>> on.   Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it is=
>> rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into the meme an=
>> d then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: what will actually occ=
>> ur in a specific decision making context.  My own experiences in attempting=
>> to participate in MS processes as evidenced in my blog give some indicatio=
>> n at a micro-level of what is involved.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they=
>> will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditio=
>> ns of presumed harmony and good will.  My observation is that MS processes =
>> do not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major proble=
>> m given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involv=
>> ed specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably d=
>> ifferent interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kin=
>> ds.  My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or str=
>> ess it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged=
>> insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) an=
>> d proceed as though nothing had occurred =E2=80=93 in this way they are ach=
>> ieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflec=
>> ts nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling =
>> (and satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to=
>> divergent positions and interests.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by e=
>> lites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most =
>> cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of eff=
>> ective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites=
>> since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these processes=
>> in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the absence of =
>> some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing accountability,=
>> transparency etc.  In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking abo=
>> ut decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of do=
>> llars of value.  Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil s=
>> ociety (or government such as those found in many LDC=E2=80=99s for that ma=
>> tter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be de=
>> ployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and domin=
>> ant interests.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government=
>> (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has b=
>> een violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stak=
>> eholder' started to look like a paradigm.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts =
>> to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tos=
>> sing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better=E2=
>> =80=A6=20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic =
>> pluralism.=20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the =E2=80=9Cdemo=
>> cratic=E2=80=9D comes in=E2=80=A6 perhaps you could explain.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way=
>> as democratic processes.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the p=
>> ossibility of rectification.  With legitimized control by powerful (corpora=
>> te) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification.  Tho=
>> se interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize th=
>> eir individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my gover=
>> nment, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired =
>> ends =E2=80=93 how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or=E2=80=A6 for =
>> Google I can=E2=80=99t even find a phone number let alone how I might possi=
>> bly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree tha=
>> t we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountabil=
>> ity and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic d=
>> ecision making=E2=80=94but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have =
>> been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an=
>> undefined =E2=80=9Cpig in a poke=E2=80=9D doesn=E2=80=99t seem to me to be=
>> a very good social trade off to be making.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to=
>> read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping t=
>> o shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundame=
>> ntal principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system o=
>> f government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate u=
>> s and legitimize powerful interests.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and struc=
>> tures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. =
>> Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or b=
>> een misused or misdirected but that doesn=E2=80=99t mean that the aspiratio=
>> n of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is=
>> not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly reject=
>> ed in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) e=
>> lites.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, e=
>> ven if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. An=
>> d I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Pe=
>> rhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] yes..
>>
>> =20
>>
>> BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as a=
>> n appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance.=
>>   Is this the official position of APC?
>>
>> =20
>>
>> M
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Shawna
>>
>> =20
>>
>> On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
>>> =20
>>> Just a couple of things...
>>> =20
>>> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its=20
>>> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been=20
>>> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a=20
>>> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to=20
>>> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the=20
>>> context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion
>>> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of=20
>>> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
>>> =20
>>> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear=20
>>> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of=20
>>> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear=20
>>> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on=20
>>> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a=20
>>> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who=20
>>> signed on to this agreement.
>>> =20
>>> And please be aware that this is not trivial...
>>> =20
>>> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see=20
>>> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide=20
>>> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in=20
>>> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy"=20
>>> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of=20
>>> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global=20
>>> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
>>> =20
>>> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance=20
>>> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means that the=20
>>> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most=20
>>> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely=20
>>> ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is=20
>>> this APC's preferred position?
>>> =20
>>> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action=20
>>> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in=20
>>> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others=20
>>> who are so blithely jumping on the MS
>>> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their=20
>>> own normative structures...?
>>> =20
>>> Best,
>>> =20
>>> M
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan=20
>>> [<mailto:shawna at apc.org>  mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:2=
>> 3 AM To: Michael=20
>>
>>> Gurstein Cc:<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>  bestbits at lists.bestbit=
>> s.net;=20
>>
>>>   <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org  Sub=
>> ject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at=20
>>
>>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> =20
>>> Dear Michael,
>>> =20
>>> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the=20
>>> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your=20
>>> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of=20
>>> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
>>> =20
>>> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been=20
>>> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various=20
>>> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it=20
>>> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support=20
>>> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively=20
>>> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights=20
>>> Council.
>>> =20
>>> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing=20
>>> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced=20
>>> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation=20
>>> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
>>> governance:
>>> =20
>>> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a=20
>>> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance=20
>>> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva=20
>>> Declaration, for =E2=80=9Cthe attainment of a more peaceful, just and=20
>>> prosperous world.=E2=80=9D
>>> =20
>>> (from our submission:=20
>>>   <http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf>=
>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf
>>
>>> )
>>> =20
>>>   There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
>>> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC=20
>>> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
>>> =20
>>> Shawna
>>> =20
>>> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by=20
>>>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to=20
>>>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of=20
>>>> "multistakeholderism=20
>>>> < <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-=
>> neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>https://gurstein.wordpress.=
>> com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-interne=
>> t-governance/>"
>>
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>> =20
>> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
>>
>>>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of=20=20
>>>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning"=20
>>>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the=20
>>>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally=20
>>>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil=20
>>>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide=20
>>>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I=20
>>>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent=20
>>>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being=20
>>>> evolved") in this sphere.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
>>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own=20
>>>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> M
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> -----Original Message----- From:=20
>>>>   <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>  bestbits-request at lists.bes=
>> tbits.net
>>
>>>> [<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>  mailto:bestbits-request at l=
>> ists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette=20
>>
>>>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
>>>>   <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org  Cc=
>> :<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>  bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>
>>>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting=20
>>>> the Dots Conference"
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Dear all
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Just an explanation and some context.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to=20
>>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and=20
>>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of=20
>>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC=20
>>>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
>>>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which=20
>>>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any=20
>>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the=20
>>>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked=20
>>>> directly to the Study.
>>>> =20
>>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to=20
>>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study=20
>>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the=20
>>>> discussion.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really=20
>>>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to=20
>>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the=20
>>>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for=20
>>>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the=20
>>>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very=20
>>>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so=20
>>>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly=20
>>>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This=20
>>>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be=20
>>>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of=20
>>>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back=20
>>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having=20
>>>> 'democratic'
>>>> =20
>>>> in front of multistakeholder.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for=20=20
>>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into=20
>>>> the text.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder',=20
>>>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they=20
>>>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and=20
>>>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could=20=20
>>>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference=20
>>>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not=20
>>>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that=20
>>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but=20
>>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the=20
>>>> number of requests for putting it in.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated=20
>>>> in this way.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as=20=20
>>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in=20
>>>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the=20
>>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that=20
>>>> anonymity is illegitimate.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in=20
>>>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the=20
>>>> gains vs. the losses.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.=20
>>>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the=20
>>>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its=20
>>>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people=20
>>>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn,=20
>>>> participate and influence internet-related debates with=20
>>>> policy-makers.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know=20
>>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they=20
>>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or=20
>>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be=20
>>>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Anriette
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>>>> =20
>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>=
>> jmalcolm at eff.org  <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>>> <<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>>> =20
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> have global significance?
>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>>   <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to>=
>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to
>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>> t
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is=20
>>>>> JNC's
>>>> =20
>>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position=20
>>>>> of
>>>> =20
>>>>> JNC.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>>>> =20
>>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human=20
>>>>> right,
>>>> =20
>>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>>>> =20
>>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be=20
>>>>> democratic.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>>>> =20
>>>>> follows:
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>>> =20
>>>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>>> =20
>>>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>>> =20
>>>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>>>> =20
>>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global=20
>>>>> governance
>>>> =20
>>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>>>> =20
>>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>>>> =20
>>>>> democratic *and* participative.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
>>>> =20
>>>>> our goal, which he describes as =E2=80=9Climited type of government-led
>>>> =20
>>>>> rulemaking=E2=80=9D. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>>>> =20
>>>>> participative.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>>>> =20
>>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>>>> =20
>>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite=20
>>>>> full
>>>> =20
>>>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response=20=20
>>>>> (which
>>>> =20
>>>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>   <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm>  http://justnetcoali=
>> tion.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>> =20
>>>>> Norbert
>>>> =20
>>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>>> =20
>>>>>   <http://JustNetCoalition.org>  http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> =20
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> =20
>>>>>   <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> <<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  mailto:governance at lists.igcauc=
>> us.org>
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> =20
>>>>>   <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubs=
>> cribing
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> =20
>>>>>   <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>  http://lists.igcaucus.org/=
>> info/governance
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> =20
>>>>>   <http://www.igcaucus.org/>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> Translate this email:<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>  http:/=
>> /translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You=20=20
>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>   <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>  bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To un=
>> subscribe or change your settings,=20
>>
>>>> visit:<http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>  http://lists.bestb=
>> its.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>>
>> =20
>>
>> iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+NckAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKwg8L/iI+89MYOM+3ZTorMwdy4lYs
>>
>> uc6P2Kw7uVJt1Soqmk5GqsRp4UQAUUAa4DI/GwjHVf6kFd1iH0y6xle2bAMckv7N
>>
>> YZkxCHbs7mo2lmzGf/rXK82RitCvsb39o2b3QavcLiETQMkpDgYebeaOCNftz/vY
>>
>> uRVUioALPdwAYZQTp7SwI5d6h2WFzzPKkDyJUx4AysCHGRomVV4v0GOeOiOT2lBN
>>
>> coyCfZInGmupR6nfmlxW+MeTRscmueAKBWpu3nbDoA1PU4wurxGVfq/u5vbD88Mo
>>
>> VqNBJEit7ctS41CQjTM0/f2Yu2LpbhWcR4Ck8dJBKcQbeL7YtPiec5dNbVcnjdc6
>>
>> mf6w4xfvC5o5ka9w9DSAJWKIwWxYR12yoUUZxwtfHzGVESNvudYNxUcRt1pLkrd8
>>
>> H5+Z/mF/E0yHfiDObVIbVWat30fMgGpPbVKFHahp+Jln9fTGCkxmxxztGGIofh4V
>>
>> Ix9G7lqt+pksPwDcU03p78DorIPavz1IhFjlSAybvQ=3D=3D
>>
>> =3DL6ab
>>
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/e2688eee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Mar  5 23:22:02 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:52:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F92736.9060604@ITforChange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
 <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
 <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
 <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
 <21753.9041.764057.805257@world.std.com>
 <54F92736.9060604@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <14bed518a58.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

As opposed to multilateralism?

Governments, inter governmental organizations, some quangos / gongos and 
some 'few innocents' - for which last Lenin had a much more pithy definition.



On March 6, 2015 9:35:56 AM Guru <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:

> a thought provoking definition of MSism -  system of, by, and for the
> lobbyists (and if I may add + fronts for the lobbyists + few innocents)
>
> Guru
>
> On Friday 06 March 2015 09:17 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> > Yes, yes, yes, for all the talk I tend to agree with Michael
> > Gurstein's summary below, msism appears to be a bit of a "pig in a
> > poke" as the expression goes (an offer to buy something in a bag which
> > you can't look into, only guess that something [good] is in there.)
> >
> > Further, from some of my observation it seems disturbing even on the
> > surface. For one thing there's no indication of how a conflict of
> > interest is handled. Worse, a conflict of interest seems to become a
> > legitimate interest and enfranchised equal.
> >
> > Fully admitting my understanding may be imperfect even if just because
> > understanding may be impossible when a concept is ill-defined the more
> > I hear the more I can't help but think that this is an attempt to
> > codify a system we have developed without really any rules or
> > regulation in the United States Congress.
> >
> > We call it a system of, by, and for the lobbyists.
> >
> > Anyone may lobby the US Congress of course, it is one of the most open
> > processes in the world. It does tend to favor oil lobbyists and auto
> > lobbyists and drug manufacturer lobbyists etc but nonetheless if you
> > wish you may compete for attention as a homeless lobbyist or single
> > mother lobbyist (e.g.) and good luck to you! But nothing prevents such
> > participation and indeed many try. It is democracy red in tooth and
> > claw!
> >
> > There is one critical difference, however. Lobbyists must indirect
> > through congressional representatives who are actually elected by
> > their constituents, one person one vote.
> >
> > This system seems to eliminate that annoying middleman (middleperson?)
> > and just lets the lobbyists introduce and vote on legislation directly
> > as interest, i.e., stakeholder, groups.
> >
> > I am skeptical of everything I wrote above because surely this can't
> > be the case -- everyone here is far too intelligent to want to
> > reinvent the notoriously interested US lobby system as an actual
> > governing structure -- so please disabuse me of these silly notions!
> >
> > From: "Michael Gurstein"<gurstein at gmail.com>
> >> Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in discursive=
> >> rather than declarative mode...
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org]=20
> >> Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM
> >> To: Michael Gurstein
> >> Cc:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting t=
> >> he Dots Conference"
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a global gover=
> >> nance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite unclear as to w=
> >> hich of the variety of stakeholder models is being proposed at any particul=
> >> ar time or in any particular context, which of course is one of the major s=
> >> ources of hesitation that I have with these kinds of proposals.  Before ent=
> >> ering into a decision making process and particularly one that will have re=
> >> al and potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the ru=
> >> les of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are they account=
> >> able to and how, what overall structures of accountability will be in place=
> >> , what decision making rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so =
> >> on.   Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it is=
> >> rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into the meme an=
> >> d then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: what will actually occ=
> >> ur in a specific decision making context.  My own experiences in attempting=
> >> to participate in MS processes as evidenced in my blog give some indicatio=
> >> n at a micro-level of what is involved.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they=
> >> will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditio=
> >> ns of presumed harmony and good will.  My observation is that MS processes =
> >> do not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major proble=
> >> m given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involv=
> >> ed specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably d=
> >> ifferent interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kin=
> >> ds.  My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or str=
> >> ess it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged=
> >> insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) an=
> >> d proceed as though nothing had occurred =E2=80=93 in this way they are ach=
> >> ieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflec=
> >> ts nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling =
> >> (and satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to=
> >> divergent positions and interests.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by e=
> >> lites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most =
> >> cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of eff=
> >> ective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites=
> >> since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these processes=
> >> in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the absence of =
> >> some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing accountability,=
> >> transparency etc.  In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking abo=
> >> ut decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of do=
> >> llars of value.  Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil s=
> >> ociety (or government such as those found in many LDC=E2=80=99s for that ma=
> >> tter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be de=
> >> ployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and domin=
> >> ant interests.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government=
> >> (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has b=
> >> een violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stak=
> >> eholder' started to look like a paradigm.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts =
> >> to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tos=
> >> sing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better=E2=
> >> =80=A6=20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic =
> >> pluralism.=20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the =E2=80=9Cdemo=
> >> cratic=E2=80=9D comes in=E2=80=A6 perhaps you could explain.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way=
> >> as democratic processes.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the p=
> >> ossibility of rectification.  With legitimized control by powerful (corpora=
> >> te) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification.  Tho=
> >> se interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize th=
> >> eir individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my gover=
> >> nment, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired =
> >> ends =E2=80=93 how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or=E2=80=A6 for =
> >> Google I can=E2=80=99t even find a phone number let alone how I might possi=
> >> bly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree tha=
> >> t we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountabil=
> >> ity and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic d=
> >> ecision making=E2=80=94but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have =
> >> been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an=
> >> undefined =E2=80=9Cpig in a poke=E2=80=9D doesn=E2=80=99t seem to me to be=
> >> a very good social trade off to be making.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to=
> >> read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping t=
> >> o shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundame=
> >> ntal principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system o=
> >> f government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate u=
> >> s and legitimize powerful interests.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and struc=
> >> tures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. =
> >> Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or b=
> >> een misused or misdirected but that doesn=E2=80=99t mean that the aspiratio=
> >> n of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is=
> >> not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly reject=
> >> ed in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) e=
> >> lites.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, e=
> >> ven if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. An=
> >> d I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Pe=
> >> rhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] yes..
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as a=
> >> n appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance.=
> >>   Is this the official position of APC?
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> M
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Shawna
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
> >>> =20
> >>> Just a couple of things...
> >>> =20
> >>> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its=20
> >>> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been=20
> >>> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a=20
> >>> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to=20
> >>> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the=20
> >>> context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion
> >>> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of=20
> >>> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
> >>> =20
> >>> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear=20
> >>> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of=20
> >>> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear=20
> >>> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on=20
> >>> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a=20
> >>> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who=20
> >>> signed on to this agreement.
> >>> =20
> >>> And please be aware that this is not trivial...
> >>> =20
> >>> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see=20
> >>> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide=20
> >>> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in=20
> >>> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy"=20
> >>> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of=20
> >>> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global=20
> >>> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
> >>> =20
> >>> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance=20
> >>> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means that the=20
> >>> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most=20
> >>> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely=20
> >>> ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is=20
> >>> this APC's preferred position?
> >>> =20
> >>> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action=20
> >>> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in=20
> >>> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others=20
> >>> who are so blithely jumping on the MS
> >>> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
> >>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their=20
> >>> own normative structures...?
> >>> =20
> >>> Best,
> >>> =20
> >>> M
> >>> =20
> >>> =20
> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan=20
> >>> [<mailto:shawna at apc.org>  mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:2=
> >> 3 AM To: Michael=20
> >>
> >>> Gurstein Cc:<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>  bestbits at lists.bestbit=
> >> s.net;=20
> >>
> >>>   <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>  Sub=
> >> ject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at=20
> >>
> >>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >>> =20
> >>> Dear Michael,
> >>> =20
> >>> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the=20
> >>> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your=20
> >>> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of=20
> >>> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
> >>> =20
> >>> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been=20
> >>> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various=20
> >>> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it=20
> >>> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support=20
> >>> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively=20
> >>> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights=20
> >>> Council.
> >>> =20
> >>> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing=20
> >>> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced=20
> >>> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation=20
> >>> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
> >>> governance:
> >>> =20
> >>> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a=20
> >>> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance=20
> >>> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva=20
> >>> Declaration, for =E2=80=9Cthe attainment of a more peaceful, just and=20
> >>> prosperous world.=E2=80=9D
> >>> =20
> >>> (from our submission:=20
> >>>   <http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf>=
> >> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf
> >>
> >>> )
> >>> =20
> >>>   There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
> >>> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC=20
> >>> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
> >>> =20
> >>> Shawna
> >>> =20
> >>> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> >>>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by=20
> >>>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to=20
> >>>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of=20
> >>>> "multistakeholderism=20
> >>>> < <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-=
> >> neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>https://gurstein.wordpress.=
> >> com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-interne=
> >> t-governance/>"
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
> >>
> >>>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of=20=20
> >>>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning"=20
> >>>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the=20
> >>>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally=20
> >>>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil=20
> >>>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide=20
> >>>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I=20
> >>>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent=20
> >>>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being=20
> >>>> evolved") in this sphere.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
> >>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own=20
> >>>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> M
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From:=20
> >>>>   <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>  
> bestbits-request at lists.bes=
> >> tbits.net
> >>
> >>>> [<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>  mailto:bestbits-request at l=
> >> ists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette=20
> >>
> >>>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
> >>>>   <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org  Cc=
> >> :<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>  bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >>
> >>>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting=20
> >>>> the Dots Conference"
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Dear all
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Just an explanation and some context.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to=20
> >>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and=20
> >>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of=20
> >>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC=20
> >>>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
> >>>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which=20
> >>>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any=20
> >>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the=20
> >>>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked=20
> >>>> directly to the Study.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to=20
> >>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study=20
> >>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the=20
> >>>> discussion.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really=20
> >>>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to=20
> >>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the=20
> >>>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for=20
> >>>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the=20
> >>>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very=20
> >>>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so=20
> >>>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly=20
> >>>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This=20
> >>>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be=20
> >>>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of=20
> >>>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back=20
> >>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having=20
> >>>> 'democratic'
> >>>> =20
> >>>> in front of multistakeholder.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for=20=20
> >>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into=20
> >>>> the text.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder',=20
> >>>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they=20
> >>>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and=20
> >>>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could=20=20
> >>>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference=20
> >>>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not=20
> >>>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that=20
> >>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but=20
> >>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the=20
> >>>> number of requests for putting it in.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated=20
> >>>> in this way.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as=20=20
> >>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in=20
> >>>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the=20
> >>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that=20
> >>>> anonymity is illegitimate.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in=20
> >>>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the=20
> >>>> gains vs. the losses.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.=20
> >>>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the=20
> >>>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its=20
> >>>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people=20
> >>>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn,=20
> >>>> participate and influence internet-related debates with=20
> >>>> policy-makers.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know=20
> >>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they=20
> >>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or=20
> >>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be=20
> >>>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Anriette
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>=
> >> jmalcolm at eff.org  <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
> >>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> >>>> <<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> have global significance?
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>   <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to>=
> >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to
> >>
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>>>> =20
> >> t
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is=20
> >>>>> JNC's
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position=20
> >>>>> of
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> JNC.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human=20
> >>>>> right,
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be=20
> >>>>> democratic.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> follows:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global=20
> >>>>> governance
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> democratic *and* participative.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> our goal, which he describes as =E2=80=9Climited type of government-led
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> rulemaking=E2=80=9D. That would clearly *not* be participative.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> participative.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Is that so hard to understand???
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite=20
> >>>>> full
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response=20=20
> >>>>> (which
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>   <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm>  
> http://justnetcoali=
> >> tion.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Greetings,
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Norbert
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>   <http://JustNetCoalition.org>  http://JustNetCoalition.org
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>   <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>> <<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  mailto:governance at lists.igcauc=
> >> us.org>
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>   <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>  
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubs=
> >> cribing
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>   <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>  
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/=
> >> info/governance
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>   <http://www.igcaucus.org/>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Translate this email:<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>  http:/=
> >> /translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ You=20=20
> >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>   <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>  bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. 
> To un=
> >> subscribe or change your settings,=20
> >>
> >>>> visit:<http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>  http://lists.bestb=
> >> its.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>> =20
> >>> =20
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >> Version: GnuPG v1
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+NckAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKwg8L/iI+89MYOM+3ZTorMwdy4lYs
> >>
> >> uc6P2Kw7uVJt1Soqmk5GqsRp4UQAUUAa4DI/GwjHVf6kFd1iH0y6xle2bAMckv7N
> >>
> >> YZkxCHbs7mo2lmzGf/rXK82RitCvsb39o2b3QavcLiETQMkpDgYebeaOCNftz/vY
> >>
> >> uRVUioALPdwAYZQTp7SwI5d6h2WFzzPKkDyJUx4AysCHGRomVV4v0GOeOiOT2lBN
> >>
> >> coyCfZInGmupR6nfmlxW+MeTRscmueAKBWpu3nbDoA1PU4wurxGVfq/u5vbD88Mo
> >>
> >> VqNBJEit7ctS41CQjTM0/f2Yu2LpbhWcR4Ck8dJBKcQbeL7YtPiec5dNbVcnjdc6
> >>
> >> mf6w4xfvC5o5ka9w9DSAJWKIwWxYR12yoUUZxwtfHzGVESNvudYNxUcRt1pLkrd8
> >>
> >> H5+Z/mF/E0yHfiDObVIbVWat30fMgGpPbVKFHahp+Jln9fTGCkxmxxztGGIofh4V
> >>
> >> Ix9G7lqt+pksPwDcU03p78DorIPavz1IhFjlSAybvQ=3D=3D
> >>
> >> =3DL6ab
> >>
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >       http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/170224ae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Mar  6 04:42:33 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:42:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] APC at the CSW
In-Reply-To: <A055CC50-1698-4E92-A9A3-BD3F38A47CAE@apcwomen.org>
References: <A055CC50-1698-4E92-A9A3-BD3F38A47CAE@apcwomen.org>
Message-ID: <54F97689.2050402@apc.org>

Dear all

For those of you following gender and ICT issues. Please pass on to
colleagues who will be in New York for
http://www.unwomen.org/en/csw/csw59-2015

Commission on the Status of Women - meeting at the UN in New York.

It is WSIS +10 this year but also Beijing +20.

For social media use:  #sectionJ
More here: https://www.apc.org/en/node/20187/

Anriette


---------

APC.org at http://www.unwomen.org/en/csw/csw59-2015

1) High Level Panel: 9 March
Reprioritising Section J of the Beijing Platform for Action – Critical
issues on the human rights of women and girls and the internet
Permanent Mission of Estonia to the UN and Association for Progressive
Communications, with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
the Netherlands and National Women’s Institute of Costa Rica (INAMU)

Discussants:
Lakshmi Puri, Deputy Executive Director of UN Women
Marina Kaljurand, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Estonia
Alejandra Mora, Minister at the Ministry for Women’s Affairs of Costa Rica
Leah C. Tanodra-Armamento, Undersecretary of the Department of Justice
in the Republic of the Philippines
Alton Grizzle, Programme Specialist at UNESCO Freedom of Expression and
Media Development Division / Global Alliance on Gender and Media
Jan Moolman, Senior Coordinator at the Women’s Rights Programme of the
Association for Progressive Communications

Moderator: Joanne Sandler, Gender at Work, and former Deputy Executive
Director of UNIFEM

2) High level panel, 9 March
'Countering cyber violence against women'
Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)

Discussants:
Helen Rubenstein, Program Director at Global Rights for Women
Parliament member from Canada (will also find out who to speak to about
the June HRC resolution on VAW that Canada leads)
Parliament member from the Philippines
Jan Moolman, Senior Coordinator at the Women’s Rights Programme of the
Association for Progressive Communications (focusing on our VAW work)

Chair: Ms Margaret Mensah Williams, President of the IPU Coordinating
Committee of Women Parliamentarians and Vice-Chairperson of the Second
National Council of Namibia.

3) Side event / panel
Ending violence against women online: Effective responses to promote
women’s rights and safety - this is the FLOW research launch

Speakers:
Laura Bretón Despradel, CLADEM in Dominican Republic
Racheal Nakitare, President of the International Association of Women in
Radio and Television (IAWRT) in Kenya
Jan Moolman, Senior Coordinator at the Women’s Rights Programme of the
Association for Progressive Communications

Moderator: Jac sm Kee, Women’s Rights Programme Manager at the
Association for Progressive Communications

4) High level panel, 13 March
'Intergenerational dialogue”
UN Women
Jac’s speaking here

5) Side event / Panel:
WITNESS
“Women and technology: Effective documentation of sexual violence and
advocacy”
Dafne Plou from APC Women's Rights Programme speaking here (Dafne is
also on the Argentina government delegation).

You can find more here: https://www.apc.org/en/node/20187/

We are also launching the #sectionJ campaign so please join us! and
share far and wide! We’ve written up a series of tweets that you can
use. See the link above.


Jan Moolman
Women's Rights Project Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications Women's Rights Programme
skype ID: jan.moolman
genderit.org
takebackthetech.net
apc.org







_______________________________________________
Apc.policy mailing list
Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.policy
To unsubscribe, email apc.policy-unsubscribe at lists.apc.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  Fri Mar  6 05:12:42 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:12:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks at
 UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)
In-Reply-To: <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:08:43 -0800
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> I wasn't the one who started propagating the
> idea that multi-stakeholderism and democracy are mutually exclusive.
> I don't believe that they are; on the contrary; multi-stakeholder
> processes aim to deepen democracy.  In particular, contrary to JNC
> assertions, multi-stakeholder Internet governance is not about giving
> companies any additional power to write the rules by which they are
> governed.

I find that Jeremy's insinuations about "JNC assertions" that are quite
serious distortions of our actual positions are getting quite tiresome.

Here is a response with an URL which (contrary to the archives of this
mailing list) can be linked to directly:


http://sustainability.oriented.systems/qirtaiba/

For JNC, “democratic” simply means: democratic. The claims of @qirtaiba
to the contrary are false.

Jeremy Malcolm of EFF [1], tweeting as @qirtaiba, has made the
following claim on twitter in the context of the UNESCO Connecting the
Dots conference [2] in Paris:

    Pondering whether to object to JNC’s addition of “democratic”
    before multi-stakeholder which is code for maintaining primacy of
    governments 

More recently he has also repeated essentially the same claim in a
blogpost [3].

However, what Jeremy claims is the view of the Just Net Coalition (JNC)
[4] on “democratic multi-stakeholderism” is not in any way an actual
position of JNC.

For JNC, “democratic” simply means: democratic.

We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.

JNC’s foundational document, the Delhi Declaration [5], states this as
follows:

    Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
    Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
    appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
    Internet that are democratic and participative. 

We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
implemented in a way that is not democratic.

We are not opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance of
the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
democratic and participative.

This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
goal, which he describes as a “limited type of government-led
rulemaking”. That would clearly not be participative.

We insist that Internet governance must be democratic and participative.

Now, Jeremy could perhaps be excused in thinking that “democratic” must
necessarily be meant as a reference to governments if no proposal had
been made of any model of governance which is both democratic and
participative. However that is not the case. In fact it is part of the
public record that Jeremy is well-aware since 2012 of my proposal for
the development of public policy documents by means of global
open-participation multistakeholder processes, where I propose that it
would be national parliaments which make decisions about policy options
where no consensus is reached: Jeremy himself invited me to present
this proposal at the initial “Best Bits” meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan.
(The current version of this poposal is here. [6])

[In case someone might be wondering whether Jeremy might simply have
forgotten about my concrete proposal for making Internet governance
inclusive as well as democratic: I don’t think so, because Jeremy’s
other recent blogpost [7] is so full of factually false assertions in
relation to JNC and some of the most active people in JNC (including
myself) that explaining it all as an honest mistake is in my view
clearly no longer possible. A point-by-point response to that older
blogpost is here. [8]]

There may be other possible approaches to designing governance
processes so that they are democratic as well as participative. This is
a topic that needs further discussion.

In my view, the central question in relation to open-participation
multistakeholder processes, which makes them democratic or
non-democratic, is this: What happens if no consensus is reached? In
the current system of Internet governance, lack of consensus means too
often that no governance decision is taken and therefore businesses are
free to act with unlimited irresponsibility, in whatever way they
choose (or are compelled to act by state surveillance demands, which
are in many cases in direct violation of human rights). As a result,
the current governance system (as a whole) for the Internet is not
democratic.

Greetings,
Norbert

[1] http://eff.org
[2] http://www.unesco.org/new/en/netconference2015
[3]
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
[4] http://justnetcoalition.org/
[5] http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration
[6] http://wisdomtaskforce.org/
[7]
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/who-are-the-just-net-coalition-and-what-can-we-expect-from-the-internet-social-forum
[8] http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  6 05:44:07 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:44:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <1A63AFEA-B5A9-49B4-96F7-27BA2A7348C1@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
	<1A63AFEA-B5A9-49B4-96F7-27BA2A7348C1@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20150306114407.09c2c443@quill>

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:23:57 -0800
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> if this means that you no longer support para 35 of the Tunis Agenda

JNC's position in relation to para 35 of the Tunis Agenda has not
changed.

It is as follows:

"Just Net Coalition agrees with the spirit of paragraph 35 of the Tunis
Agenda in that that governments have specific public policy roles and
responsibilities, and other stakeholders cannot claim a similar
position as governments in this regard. However, we consider that the
description of the role given to civil society in this section is
inadequate. While the text does speak of an important role that civil
society should continue to play, this is inadequate because the
exclusive mention of 'community level' and not 'policy level' gives an
unbalanced view of civil society's role. While community level work and
linkages constitute the key legitimising factors of civil society,
civil society also has a strong role to play at the policy level in
terms of 'deepening democracy' whereby it brings to the policy table
representation of otherwise under-represented voices."

(This is the content of note 5 in JNC's October 14, 2014 Statement to
the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference of the International
Telecommunication Union.) 
http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014.pdf

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
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 nb at bollow.ch  Fri Mar  6 06:35:29 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:35:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea
In-Reply-To: <070201d0576a$36096680$a21c3380$@gmail.com>
References: <394A2ED1-6E70-4B33-8AEA-C45F7CBF277C@gmail.com>
	<ABDE185B-9629-4CB0-B4E6-340290C613BE@gmail.com>
	<070201d0576a$36096680$a21c3380$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150306123529.6ec516e8@quill>

What precisely is the actual issue here?

I mean, what exactly happened?

Greetings,
Norbert



On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:31:27 -0800
"Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Farber via ip [mailto:ip at listbox.com] 
> Sent: March 5, 2015 7:01 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea
> 
>  
> 
> Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation
> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/> Report mistakes
> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/contacts/letter/> 
> 
> Events <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/> / Official statement
> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> 
> 
> 
> Russia Disputed Against Removal of Crimean Domains in ICANN 
> 
> 
> Published:
> Feb. 11, 2015
> Event type:
>  <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> Official statement 
> Directions:
>  <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=298> Cooperation with
> ICAAN, <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=274> Internet
> regulation on behalf of global community Regions:
> The Republic of Crimea
> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=The%20Republic%20of%20Crimea>
> Countries: Russia <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Russia> ,
> Singapore <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Singapore> 
> Persons:
> 
> Print <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> Share
> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> 
> 
> Singapore, February 11, 2015. — Julia Elanskaya, Deputy Director of
> Department on International Collaboration of Ministry of Telecom and
> Mass Communications, made an official statement on 52nd meeting of
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), opened
> at the beginning of the week in Singapore. She paid attention to
> recent decision of American registrar, cancelling domains, registered
> on the territory of Crimea.
> 
> Full text of the statement is presented below.
> 
> “We want to draw your attention to recent decision of American
> registrar. It informed its clients, located in a specific region,
> about cancellation of accounts, domains and their withdrawal starting
> from January 31, 2015. Registrar refers to trading limitations that
> don’t allow American companies to run a business with individuals and
> enterprises, located in Crimea.
> 
> Russia has always been against introduction of sanctions in ICT
> sphere, particularly, regarding the Internet.
> 
> Sanctions, especially those, that are imposed on the Internet users,
> must be considered as restriction of right of every person to receive
> and distribute information and ideas through mass media independently
> of state borders, as it is established in Article 19 of the Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> This precedent contradicts with values of International meeting at
> the highest level on information society, especially with principles
> of using ICT for ensuring general access to information in accordance
> with Tunisian program on information society.[MG]  (presumably the
> WSIS Declaration).
> 
> We want to mention that this precedent shows real situation in sphere
> of Internet-governance, when one government unilaterally adopts
> measures, discriminating users rights on area basis. At the same time
> this government controls governance of domain name system throughout
> the world.
> 
> Such unilateral restrictions undermine universally multilaterally
> recognized principles and values and trust in open and interconnected
> information space. They can also damage development of
> Internet-governance mechanisms and lead to its fragmentation.
> 
> These restrictions also damage multilateral model of
> Internet-governance and clearly demonstrate its inefficiency. We
> suppose that it’s necessary to ensure more fair allocation of
> Internet-governance means based on international agreements between
> countries under the aegis of the United Nations.
> 
> Russian Federation encourages all interested parties of all countries
> refrain from blocking in the Internet, including blocking of domain
> names for political purposes and make efforts for enforcement
> Internet-users rights. 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3> |
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308>
> Modify Your Subscription |
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150305100104:6AAC5E20-C348-11E4-929D-9D9C7F9AC2DC>
> Unsubscribe Now 
> 
>  <http://www.listbox.com> 
> 
>  
> 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  6 06:47:42 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:17:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea
In-Reply-To: <20150306123529.6ec516e8@quill>
References: <394A2ED1-6E70-4B33-8AEA-C45F7CBF277C@gmail.com> <ABDE185B-9629-4CB0-B4E6-340290C613BE@gmail.com> <070201d0576a$36096680$a21c3380$@gmail.com> <20150306123529.6ec516e8@quill>
Message-ID: <7940238C-8415-4CD3-8163-CEDE535F0B78@hserus.net>

OFAC sanctions - there are a bunch of companies tied to individuals involved in the crimean conflict that are slapped with a US trade embargo.

For a US company to do business with them means jail time, if not heavy fines.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/ukraine.aspx

--srs (iPad)

> On 06-Mar-2015, at 17:05, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> What precisely is the actual issue here?
> 
> I mean, what exactly happened?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:31:27 -0800
> "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: David Farber via ip [mailto:ip at listbox.com] 
>> Sent: March 5, 2015 7:01 AM
>> To: ip
>> Subject: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation
>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/> Report mistakes
>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/contacts/letter/> 
>> 
>> Events <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/> / Official statement
>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> 
>> 
>> 
>> Russia Disputed Against Removal of Crimean Domains in ICANN 
>> 
>> 
>> Published:
>> Feb. 11, 2015
>> Event type:
>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> Official statement 
>> Directions:
>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=298> Cooperation with
>> ICAAN, <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=274> Internet
>> regulation on behalf of global community Regions:
>> The Republic of Crimea
>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=The%20Republic%20of%20Crimea>
>> Countries: Russia <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Russia> ,
>> Singapore <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Singapore> 
>> Persons:
>> 
>> Print <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> Share
>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> 
>> 
>> Singapore, February 11, 2015. — Julia Elanskaya, Deputy Director of
>> Department on International Collaboration of Ministry of Telecom and
>> Mass Communications, made an official statement on 52nd meeting of
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), opened
>> at the beginning of the week in Singapore. She paid attention to
>> recent decision of American registrar, cancelling domains, registered
>> on the territory of Crimea.
>> 
>> Full text of the statement is presented below.
>> 
>> “We want to draw your attention to recent decision of American
>> registrar. It informed its clients, located in a specific region,
>> about cancellation of accounts, domains and their withdrawal starting
>> from January 31, 2015. Registrar refers to trading limitations that
>> don’t allow American companies to run a business with individuals and
>> enterprises, located in Crimea.
>> 
>> Russia has always been against introduction of sanctions in ICT
>> sphere, particularly, regarding the Internet.
>> 
>> Sanctions, especially those, that are imposed on the Internet users,
>> must be considered as restriction of right of every person to receive
>> and distribute information and ideas through mass media independently
>> of state borders, as it is established in Article 19 of the Universal
>> Declaration of Human Rights.
>> 
>> This precedent contradicts with values of International meeting at
>> the highest level on information society, especially with principles
>> of using ICT for ensuring general access to information in accordance
>> with Tunisian program on information society.[MG]  (presumably the
>> WSIS Declaration).
>> 
>> We want to mention that this precedent shows real situation in sphere
>> of Internet-governance, when one government unilaterally adopts
>> measures, discriminating users rights on area basis. At the same time
>> this government controls governance of domain name system throughout
>> the world.
>> 
>> Such unilateral restrictions undermine universally multilaterally
>> recognized principles and values and trust in open and interconnected
>> information space. They can also damage development of
>> Internet-governance mechanisms and lead to its fragmentation.
>> 
>> These restrictions also damage multilateral model of
>> Internet-governance and clearly demonstrate its inefficiency. We
>> suppose that it’s necessary to ensure more fair allocation of
>> Internet-governance means based on international agreements between
>> countries under the aegis of the United Nations.
>> 
>> Russian Federation encourages all interested parties of all countries
>> refrain from blocking in the Internet, including blocking of domain
>> names for political purposes and make efforts for enforcement
>> Internet-users rights. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3> |
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308>
>> Modify Your Subscription |
>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150305100104:6AAC5E20-C348-11E4-929D-9D9C7F9AC2DC>
>> Unsubscribe Now 
>> 
>> <http://www.listbox.com>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  6 06:53:37 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:53:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea
In-Reply-To: <7940238C-8415-4CD3-8163-CEDE535F0B78@hserus.net>
References: <394A2ED1-6E70-4B33-8AEA-C45F7CBF277C@gmail.com>
	<ABDE185B-9629-4CB0-B4E6-340290C613BE@gmail.com>
	<070201d0576a$36096680$a21c3380$@gmail.com>
	<20150306123529.6ec516e8@quill>
	<7940238C-8415-4CD3-8163-CEDE535F0B78@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20150306125337.7cbe7dc7@quill>

So this is about US-based registrars of 2LD registrations, and
registrants who fall under the terms of the sanctions?

Would the registrants be able to work around the issue without
changing any URIs (and therefore breaking links etc) by means of
transferring their domain registrations to a registrar outside the
US?

Greetings,
Norbert


On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:17:42 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> OFAC sanctions - there are a bunch of companies tied to individuals
> involved in the crimean conflict that are slapped with a US trade
> embargo.
> 
> For a US company to do business with them means jail time, if not
> heavy fines.
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/ukraine.aspx
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> > On 06-Mar-2015, at 17:05, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > What precisely is the actual issue here?
> > 
> > I mean, what exactly happened?
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:31:27 -0800
> > "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: David Farber via ip [mailto:ip at listbox.com] 
> >> Sent: March 5, 2015 7:01 AM
> >> To: ip
> >> Subject: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian
> >> Federation <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/> Report mistakes
> >> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/contacts/letter/> 
> >> 
> >> Events <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/> / Official statement
> >> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Russia Disputed Against Removal of Crimean Domains in ICANN 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Published:
> >> Feb. 11, 2015
> >> Event type:
> >> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> Official statement 
> >> Directions:
> >> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=298> Cooperation
> >> with ICAAN, <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=274>
> >> Internet regulation on behalf of global community Regions:
> >> The Republic of Crimea
> >> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=The%20Republic%20of%20Crimea>
> >> Countries: Russia
> >> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Russia> , Singapore
> >> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Singapore> Persons:
> >> 
> >> Print <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> Share
> >> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> 
> >> 
> >> Singapore, February 11, 2015. — Julia Elanskaya, Deputy Director of
> >> Department on International Collaboration of Ministry of Telecom
> >> and Mass Communications, made an official statement on 52nd
> >> meeting of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> >> (ICANN), opened at the beginning of the week in Singapore. She
> >> paid attention to recent decision of American registrar,
> >> cancelling domains, registered on the territory of Crimea.
> >> 
> >> Full text of the statement is presented below.
> >> 
> >> “We want to draw your attention to recent decision of American
> >> registrar. It informed its clients, located in a specific region,
> >> about cancellation of accounts, domains and their withdrawal
> >> starting from January 31, 2015. Registrar refers to trading
> >> limitations that don’t allow American companies to run a business
> >> with individuals and enterprises, located in Crimea.
> >> 
> >> Russia has always been against introduction of sanctions in ICT
> >> sphere, particularly, regarding the Internet.
> >> 
> >> Sanctions, especially those, that are imposed on the Internet
> >> users, must be considered as restriction of right of every person
> >> to receive and distribute information and ideas through mass media
> >> independently of state borders, as it is established in Article 19
> >> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> >> 
> >> This precedent contradicts with values of International meeting at
> >> the highest level on information society, especially with
> >> principles of using ICT for ensuring general access to information
> >> in accordance with Tunisian program on information society.[MG]
> >> (presumably the WSIS Declaration).
> >> 
> >> We want to mention that this precedent shows real situation in
> >> sphere of Internet-governance, when one government unilaterally
> >> adopts measures, discriminating users rights on area basis. At the
> >> same time this government controls governance of domain name
> >> system throughout the world.
> >> 
> >> Such unilateral restrictions undermine universally multilaterally
> >> recognized principles and values and trust in open and
> >> interconnected information space. They can also damage development
> >> of Internet-governance mechanisms and lead to its fragmentation.
> >> 
> >> These restrictions also damage multilateral model of
> >> Internet-governance and clearly demonstrate its inefficiency. We
> >> suppose that it’s necessary to ensure more fair allocation of
> >> Internet-governance means based on international agreements between
> >> countries under the aegis of the United Nations.
> >> 
> >> Russian Federation encourages all interested parties of all
> >> countries refrain from blocking in the Internet, including
> >> blocking of domain names for political purposes and make efforts
> >> for enforcement Internet-users rights. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives
> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3>
> >> |
> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308>
> >> Modify Your Subscription |
> >> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150305100104:6AAC5E20-C348-11E4-929D-9D9C7F9AC2DC>
> >> Unsubscribe Now 
> >> 
> >> <http://www.listbox.com>
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > 
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  6 07:13:14 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:43:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea
In-Reply-To: <20150306125337.7cbe7dc7@quill>
References: <394A2ED1-6E70-4B33-8AEA-C45F7CBF277C@gmail.com> <ABDE185B-9629-4CB0-B4E6-340290C613BE@gmail.com> <070201d0576a$36096680$a21c3380$@gmail.com> <20150306123529.6ec516e8@quill> <7940238C-8415-4CD3-8163-CEDE535F0B78@hserus.net> <20150306125337.7cbe7dc7@quill>
Message-ID: <F3F84E10-008F-4280-86C5-A7A2EA42324F@hserus.net>

I am not sure how - assets of embargoed individuals if found in the USA may be subject to seizure. 

I haven't seen the actual domains so I am not sure if they were simply removed from the registrar's records, or moved to a special NS operated to host seized domains

--srs (iPad)

> On 06-Mar-2015, at 17:23, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> So this is about US-based registrars of 2LD registrations, and
> registrants who fall under the terms of the sanctions?
> 
> Would the registrants be able to work around the issue without
> changing any URIs (and therefore breaking links etc) by means of
> transferring their domain registrations to a registrar outside the
> US?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:17:42 +0530
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
>> OFAC sanctions - there are a bunch of companies tied to individuals
>> involved in the crimean conflict that are slapped with a US trade
>> embargo.
>> 
>> For a US company to do business with them means jail time, if not
>> heavy fines.
>> 
>> http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/ukraine.aspx
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>>> On 06-Mar-2015, at 17:05, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>> 
>>> What precisely is the actual issue here?
>>> 
>>> I mean, what exactly happened?
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:31:27 -0800
>>> "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> From: David Farber via ip [mailto:ip at listbox.com] 
>>>> Sent: March 5, 2015 7:01 AM
>>>> To: ip
>>>> Subject: [IP] About ICANN and Crimea
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian
>>>> Federation <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/> Report mistakes
>>>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/contacts/letter/> 
>>>> 
>>>> Events <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/> / Official statement
>>>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Russia Disputed Against Removal of Crimean Domains in ICANN 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Published:
>>>> Feb. 11, 2015
>>>> Event type:
>>>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?type=22> Official statement 
>>>> Directions:
>>>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=298> Cooperation
>>>> with ICAAN, <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?directions=274>
>>>> Internet regulation on behalf of global community Regions:
>>>> The Republic of Crimea
>>>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=The%20Republic%20of%20Crimea>
>>>> Countries: Russia
>>>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Russia> , Singapore
>>>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/list/?words=Singapore> Persons:
>>>> 
>>>> Print <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> Share
>>>> <http://minsvyaz.ru/en/events/32631/> 
>>>> 
>>>> Singapore, February 11, 2015. — Julia Elanskaya, Deputy Director of
>>>> Department on International Collaboration of Ministry of Telecom
>>>> and Mass Communications, made an official statement on 52nd
>>>> meeting of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>>> (ICANN), opened at the beginning of the week in Singapore. She
>>>> paid attention to recent decision of American registrar,
>>>> cancelling domains, registered on the territory of Crimea.
>>>> 
>>>> Full text of the statement is presented below.
>>>> 
>>>> “We want to draw your attention to recent decision of American
>>>> registrar. It informed its clients, located in a specific region,
>>>> about cancellation of accounts, domains and their withdrawal
>>>> starting from January 31, 2015. Registrar refers to trading
>>>> limitations that don’t allow American companies to run a business
>>>> with individuals and enterprises, located in Crimea.
>>>> 
>>>> Russia has always been against introduction of sanctions in ICT
>>>> sphere, particularly, regarding the Internet.
>>>> 
>>>> Sanctions, especially those, that are imposed on the Internet
>>>> users, must be considered as restriction of right of every person
>>>> to receive and distribute information and ideas through mass media
>>>> independently of state borders, as it is established in Article 19
>>>> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>> 
>>>> This precedent contradicts with values of International meeting at
>>>> the highest level on information society, especially with
>>>> principles of using ICT for ensuring general access to information
>>>> in accordance with Tunisian program on information society.[MG]
>>>> (presumably the WSIS Declaration).
>>>> 
>>>> We want to mention that this precedent shows real situation in
>>>> sphere of Internet-governance, when one government unilaterally
>>>> adopts measures, discriminating users rights on area basis. At the
>>>> same time this government controls governance of domain name
>>>> system throughout the world.
>>>> 
>>>> Such unilateral restrictions undermine universally multilaterally
>>>> recognized principles and values and trust in open and
>>>> interconnected information space. They can also damage development
>>>> of Internet-governance mechanisms and lead to its fragmentation.
>>>> 
>>>> These restrictions also damage multilateral model of
>>>> Internet-governance and clearly demonstrate its inefficiency. We
>>>> suppose that it’s necessary to ensure more fair allocation of
>>>> Internet-governance means based on international agreements between
>>>> countries under the aegis of the United Nations.
>>>> 
>>>> Russian Federation encourages all interested parties of all
>>>> countries refrain from blocking in the Internet, including
>>>> blocking of domain names for political purposes and make efforts
>>>> for enforcement Internet-users rights. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3>
>>>> |
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308>
>>>> Modify Your Subscription |
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150305100104:6AAC5E20-C348-11E4-929D-9D9C7F9AC2DC>
>>>> Unsubscribe Now 
>>>> 
>>>> <http://www.listbox.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  6 08:09:01 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:39:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
 the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F887CA.9070004@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <54F84F09.1020507@itforchange.net> <54F887CA.9070004@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54F9A6ED.8040800@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 05 March 2015 10:13 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Parminder
>
> Did JNC include economic and social rights in the submission you made to
> the UNESCO study? I mean beforehand.

Anriette

I dont remember seeing a call to comment on the study, though it is 
possible I missed it. Was it circulated on these lists by those who were 
closely associated with the event? I dont seem to be able to find it.

But then, JNC does not have the sole responsibility to do this. We are 
entirely un-funded and overworked (with Internet Social Forum for 
instance). Almost all JNC members active in IG space have no funds. Even 
IT for Change has no IG funds for quite some time now. I think the well 
funded groups closely following the event and working on it have the 
responsibility. (BTW Anita got a sudden invite just a week before the 
event to speak in the access session but we still heard nothing about 
commenting on the report.)

Not only economic, social and cultural rights are missing in the outcome 
doc, as glaring is the fact that no connection of Internet govenrance to 
UNESCO's core mandate of, and work in, community media is made. It is 
widely predicted that soon much of community media (like almost all 
broadcast) will shift to the Internet, and here we have a foundational 
document on UNESCO's role in the IG space, and not a single mention of 
community media! The ethics, principles and even policy frameworks of 
community media have direct relevance to IG. It is these kinds of 
normative angles that UNESCO should have been bringing to IG, not just 
bolstering the US's global vision for the Internet and its governance - 
with some token softening here and there. Civil society should not 
bought into it.

So, in fact, we from JNC had so little time after the draft hit us, and 
with most of us not on the site, and little prior information of where 
this was going, that we could just bring up only a few key issues - like 
the need for 'democratic' there and 'social, eco and cultural rights'. 
Certainly community media is another big angle missing. So, is the 
spirit of the  'right to benefit from scientific progress and its 
applications' (science being a core UNESCO mandate) there being a full 
report of UN Rapporteur on Cultural Rights on this particular right ....

You say you were not the only civil society member of the committee. In 
fact we dont even know who were on the committee, much less how was it 
constituted, and what work it did. I think we have a right to know. So 
much is made of need for transparency and representativeness of 
multistakeholder processes when high-sounding docs get written but 
little gets followed in practice. I know UN orgs can be quite obtuse on 
such issues, but good to know what is known to civil society insiders. 
At least on the civil society side, we can be as transparent and as 
representative, and accountable, as possible. (Well, the NetMundial 
document seeks this.)

Also will be  useful to know if there was any pre and onsite civil 
society networking on what was going into the draft, where it all begun, 
or so on. I did not see any sign on the lists, but perhaps because they 
are public. Will be good to know.

Lastly, this is no 'battle of words'. These are important discussions, 
and if there are some political difference, and they exist everywhere, 
there would be some amount of contention. That is all what is happening. 
We, for instance, expect great accountability from public servants; 
would we consider it fine if they begin to call such kinds of questions 
and discussions as an avoidable 'battle of words'. Why are them civil 
society people exempt for such things - but of course within reasonable 
limits of what kind of time etc can be given to it.

Regards
parminder
>
> All I can say is that the addition of economic and social rights was
> made the afternoon when the statement was being finalised. I argued that
> it should be included but it was not. If there was more time I think
> that it would have been easy to include the reference to the ESCR treaty
> in the preamble, and in the text. But translators were demanding the
> text and time was up.
>
> There were other things too that were argued which took time. The people
> who submitted content will know what made it and what did not.
>
> Whether civil society organisations accept the statement is up to them.
>
> I did not claim to represent civil society in this process.  I was also
> not the only civil society person on the committee. I truly did my best
> to try and make sure the text accommodated strong concerns and spoke
> with individuals from several governments and civil society
> organisations - including JNC - in an effort to do so.
>
> APC has always emphasised economic, social and cultural rights in
> relation to the internet and will continue to do so.
>
> The reason I said that adding 'democratic' was not an option was that on
> the first day during the open discussion of the text Richard proposed
> the text and several governments submitted comments to say that it is
> non-negotiable for them and that if it was added they would dissociate
> themselves with the document.
>
> I shared this with Richard so that he had advance warning. The only way
> of changing that would probably have been to work with government
> delegations and convince them to argue for it.
>
> I don't want to get into a long battle of words beyond this. Of course
> there are political issues at play that we need to be aware of and
> address. It is your view that JNC are the only people who are doing so.
>
> I know that others, including APC, are also addressing these issues, in
> multiple forums and in multiple ways.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 05/03/2015 14:41, parminder wrote:
>> Dear Anriette
>>
>> Respectfully, there sure can be justifications and justifications, but
>> there are also some solid facts that we must contend with.
>>
>> The first fact here is about 'social, economic and cultural rights':
>>
>> First about its cardinal importance - I cant see the 'access' pillar of
>> UNESCO's interest in IG without a social, economic and cultural rights
>> framing, it becomes something very different without that framing, which
>> btw is what both telcos and MNCs like facebook and google want. So,
>> there is nothing innocent about it. There is a big global political
>> struggle about what 'access' means in normative terms. (Even telcos
>> cited the 'access' issue in their opposition to net neutrality!) In
>> fact, I see even privacy framed in soc and eco rights framing becuase of
>> the key economic value of data today, and certainly ethics. I can keep
>> writing on this subject, but I am sure you understand. You might
>> remember that the framing of communication rights basically arose from
>> this issue - that negative rights do not suffice to enable people's
>> communicative power and equity, we need positive rights as well. Whereby
>> communications rights were framed as against just an exclusive accent on
>> freedom of expression. And of course UNESCO was at the centre of those
>> political struggles. Everyone knows that the US has always been solidly
>> against the eco/soc/cultural rights side of communicative systems, and
>> in Paris they (again) won, with implicit or explicit support of civil
>> society groups among others. This is a fact, and we must face it.
>>
>> We just need to contend with the fact that eco, soc and cultural rights
>> are not mentioned in the document, even when civil and political rights
>> are mentioned, as well as the corresponding covenant. As you say
>> elsewhere in your email,  UN documents indeed have continuities of text,
>> earlier political struggles and so on. And so, the mistakes and loses of
>> this document will be taken forward. After WSIS, if was the first key IG
>> doc made in a UN body, and so the losses are huge.
>>
>> In the circumstances, it is not just a matter of everyone being good and
>> nice to everyone one else here, there is a political struggle and in my
>> view a great political loss here. We need to know who always so well
>> remembers to put FoE and civil/ political rights and who forgets to put
>> economic and social rights, in framing communication/ information
>> issues. Who forgot in this particular case, and who ignored. You say,
>> the proposal to put eco and soc rights came in too late. We, as in JNC,
>> proposed when we saw the draft. We sure cannot propose earlier. But what
>> were the drafters doing - well perhaps they need to take more people who
>> are likely to remember this set of rights! These are real issues. These
>> cannot just be swept under the carpet because all of us should be nice
>> to all others of us. We need to know. And we need to be able to tell our
>> constituencies outside, to whom we are primarily responsible.
>>
>> Also about the proposal to put this part coming in late, and drafters
>> wanting a short document,  tell me how much time and space it takes to
>> put a comma at the end of preambular para beginning with "Further
>> recalled.....  " and adding after ...Covenant on Civil and Political
>> rights just this - "....and the International Covenant on Social,
>> Economic and Cultural Rights". Especially when whole new points and
>> sentences have been added to the draft between the last plenary and the
>> final document! Did those present there as civil society even at that
>> stage when they discovered that soc and eco rights were missing really
>> take this issue up with full might? Did anyone there solidly back the
>> demand. I very much doubt - bec the proof is out there. Why did we not
>> fully put our foot down. After all we would only be asking what exists
>> in most UN doc on similar issues, and which was there prominently in the
>> WSIS documents.
>>
>> I dont think we should put up excuses that the demand for putting in soc
>> and eco rights came in late, and UNESCO wanted a short doc, and so on.
>> This excuse is untenable, in a provable way as I show above. Other long
>> text were included, and much later.. If it is wrong, and an enormous
>> political loss, it is so, clearly and bluntly! We must accept it.
>>
>> The second fact we must contend with is that some civil society people
>> there joined US and its allies to say 'democratic' has baggage, and all
>> possible references to 'democracy' were refused. And what I really find
>> somewhat shocking is that you are sympathetically explaining that view,
>> although in a most unconvincing manner. Dont you think multistakeholder
>> has baggage! Why did you not remove that term on the same logic. Do you
>> not know that there are parties that think even 'human rights' have
>> baggage. Would you accept such a logic?  Who decides what has baggage?
>> Does this also bespeaks a certain composition of civil society that was
>> more actively present and involved there. So,  should we now start
>> considering 'democratic' as a likely problematic term. Great progress we
>> are making! First one needed to fight to get democratic into the
>> NetMundial document in just one place when multistakeholder is there in
>> about 30 places. And then comes the meeting at UNESCO  - an hallowed UN
>> body - and here we are told that well in fact 'democratic' is
>> problematic and has baggage and so let it be completely out.
>>
>> I dont understand you logic that in Tunis Agenda democratic is always
>> mentioned with multilateral and therefore is means multilateral . I
>> thought if a word is mentioned along with another one, it can be taken
>> that it means something different. At places, all three democratic,
>> multilateral and multistakeholder are mentioned together in TA. Does
>> that mean that each of these then is a code word for the other. This is
>> a very weak and unsustainable logic.
>>
>> Meanwhile, you know that it is not as you say 'the editing group did
>> consider it seriously'. When Anita proposed putting 'democratic
>> dialogue' in a different place, in 5.1, such apparently was the depth of
>> antipathy to the term 'democratic' that the group quietly included
>> 'public dialogue' not touching the word 'democratic' even here, in a
>> largely 'innocent' usage. (This in fact was a good opportunity to
>> assuage those who were demanding the inclusion of the 'democratic term -
>> a democratic dialogue certainly cannot mean multilateral, or does it ?
>> But the fact that even this opportunity was not taken shows how solidly
>> the forces against democracy were entrenched. I simply do not know what
>> civil society persons on the inside were doing.) This really makes one
>> extremely alarmed, to see such studious exclusion of the word
>> 'democratic'. It is from this alarm that our extreme concern at what
>> happened in Paris is pouring out. And you want us to simply accept it as
>> if nothing happened and move on.
>>
>> BTW, when you say,"It is a pity that 'democratic was not added, but it
>> was never really an option' , I do not fully understand. Why you say 'it
>> was never really an option'. That itself is alarming. Have we reached
>> such a stage that use of the term 'democratic' is no longer really an
>> option for global normative texts of IG'.  JNC has an analysis of what
>> is happening here, and we have held it for a long time, with pretty
>> accurate predictive value, as we see things unfolding like what happened
>> in Paris. We are not ready to be happy to move on. We intend to dig in
>> and fight. Social, economic and cultural rights must be restored as key
>> normative values for the communicative sphere of which the Internet is
>> today a central element. And governance in all areas, including the
>> Internet, will be democratic - that must be made clear. We will decry
>> any effort or move which goes against these, and if needed the actors
>> responsible. This is a political struggle, not a cocktail party.
>>
>> There is more, but later.
>>
>> And I do thank you for your report below.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 05 March 2015 04:05 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Just an explanation and some context.
>>>
>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>>>
>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>>>
>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
>>> made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text
>>> from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved
>>> weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>>>
>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
>>> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>>>
>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an
>>> option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial
>>> statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I
>>> would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic
>>> However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why
>>> "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the
>>> word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
>>> every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that
>>> 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the
>>> importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
>>> in front of multistakeholder.
>>>
>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
>>> the text.
>>>
>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but
>>> because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>>>
>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are
>>> full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
>>> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>>>
>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert
>>> (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
>>> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
>>> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>>>
>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
>>> number of requests for putting it in.
>>>
>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
>>> this way.
>>>
>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the
>>> early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity
>>> is illegitimate.
>>>
>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents
>>> we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the
>>> losses.
>>>
>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting
>>> it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the global south
>>> who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will,
>>> I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society,
>>> particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and
>>> influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
>>>
>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
>>> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>>>> have global significance?
>>>>>
>>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>>>>
>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
>>>> JNC.
>>>>
>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>>>
>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
>>>>
>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>>>> follows:
>>>>
>>>>      Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>>>      Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>>>      appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>>>      Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>>>
>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>>>
>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>>>> democratic *and* participative.
>>>>
>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
>>>> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>>>
>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>>>> participative.
>>>>
>>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
>>>> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
>>>> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>>>
>>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>>> http://JustNetCoalition.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/ce2458d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Fri Mar  6 08:19:23 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:19:23 +0000
Subject: [governance] East Timor's ccTLD changed
In-Reply-To: <CAPS0kmFiVB1q_8Zzft4whJ5wbnrTHK-gT2+oKFnJ_scFhD3VVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <394A2ED1-6E70-4B33-8AEA-C45F7CBF277C@gmail.com>
 <ABDE185B-9629-4CB0-B4E6-340290C613BE@gmail.com>
 <070201d0576a$36096680$a21c3380$@gmail.com>
 <D86D4683-C000-4BD1-AF26-A111254A765A@ntu.edu.sg>
 <CAPS0kmFiVB1q_8Zzft4whJ5wbnrTHK-gT2+oKFnJ_scFhD3VVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <74467F84-6EB6-46A5-9385-61CAC5665382@ntu.edu.sg>

Hi Alex.

Always a pleasure to meet you. And of course to be regaled by your stories.

Yours are at the level of parables--memorable stories with important takeaways.

We may find ourselves collaborating sooner than we might guess. My project on media policies of small countries seem to be getting traction. When the funding support is viable, I will get back to you.

Have a good weekend.

Regards,
Ang Peng Hwa

On 6 Mar 2015, at 7:47 am, Alexander Sceberras Trigona <nutarsceberrastrigona at gmail.com<mailto:nutarsceberrastrigona at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Ang,
Great to meet up in Paris!
So much we could do together...
as ever,
Alex

On 5 March 2015 at 19:35, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>> wrote:
An interesting piece by Kieren McCarthy on the change from .tp to .tl.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/04/east_timor_was_officially_removed_from_the_internet_yesterday/

Regards,
Ang Peng Hwa

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.

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

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/3a2a8a7e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Mar  6 12:07:20 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 22:37:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54F9DEC8.9040508@itforchange.net>

On Friday 06 March 2015 12:53 AM, Shawna Finnegan wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the
> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your
> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of
> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
>
> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been
> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various
> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it
> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support
> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively
> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council.
>
> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing
> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced
> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation
> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet governance:
>
> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a means
> to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance that
> enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva
> Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and
> prosperous world.”
>
> (from our submission:
> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf)
>
> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' over
> a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false.

  Shawna, two things in the above regard. First, unlike democracy we 
just dont know what multistakeholderism is - even in its ideal-typical 
form, and how it works to produce public policy, the key question here.  
I asked this question specifically responding on 27th Feb to Anriette's 
email, but got no response. And to leave it not vague, also cited two 
specific hypothetical policy documents, asking how in your scheme of 
things these would be best produced. Once we know the answer, we will 
really be able to compare it with the alternative - known and practised 
democratic means (which if you want me to describe, I happily will, at 
least my best conception of such a method).

Second, it indeed there is no binary or dilemma, as you say,  APC and 
other CS people present there should perhaps have put their foot down as 
solidly as JNC did against those who said 'democracy had baggage', and 
therefore, while the 'multistakeholder' word would be in the document, 
'democracy' wont be. It is 'they' who posed this 'false dilemma' and you 
should perhaps be arguing with them. (Did the  CS groups/ people that 
were present even object to the 'democracy has baggage' assertion? No, 
they did not.)

  We can make these points in discussions here, but those must also 
match the visible action on the ground, which really counts, either 
contributing to or taking away from the real political struggles. Some 
very significant political things happened in Paris yesterday, and there 
are responsibilities and accountabilities for that, beyond words 
presented in these discussions, and I mean no dis-respect from them, 
because I am indeed happy that you are presenting a case. I am just 
saying what I politically think about the situation, and I cannot be 
dishonest about it.

regards
parminder


>   APC engages
> where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
>
> Shawna
>
> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on
>> by significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference
>> to "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology
>> of "multistakeholderism
>> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"
>>
>>
> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of
>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite
>> "demeaning" of all those who were in any way a party to this
>> travesty.
>>
>>
>>
>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the
>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and
>> equally of the provenance of the funding support provided for the
>> Civil Society component who were able to attend this event and thus
>> provide the overall framework of legitimacy for this output
>> document should I think raise alarm bells among any with a degree
>> of independent concern for how normative structures are evolving
>> (or "being evolved") in this sphere.
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of
>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its
>> own normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From:
>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>>
>>
>> Just an explanation and some context.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was
>> to review comments on the draft statement and support the chair
>> and secretariat in compiling drafts.
>>
>>
>>
>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>>
>>
>>
>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC
>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which
>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final
>> draft).
>>
>>
>>
>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
>> reason other than it came during the final session and the
>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked
>> directly to the Study.
>>
>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final
>> study report rather than in the outcome statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of
>> the discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never
>> really an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic
>> to multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the
>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for
>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the
>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very
>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so
>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly
>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This
>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be
>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of
>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having
>> 'democratic'
>>
>> in front of multistakeholder.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments')
>> into the text.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic
>> multistakeholder', but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>>
>>
>>
>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that
>> they are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and
>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>>
>>
>>
>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could
>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference
>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not
>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously,
>> but that the number of objections to this text were far greater
>> than the number of requests for putting it in.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated
>> in this way.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in
>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of
>> the government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that
>> anonymity is illegitimate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in
>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the
>> gains vs. the losses.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in
>> the global south who will put issues that are important to us on
>> its agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more
>> people from civil society, particularly from developing countries,
>> to learn, participate and influence internet-related debates with
>> policy-makers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really
>> know what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive
>> and they demean not only the work of the civil society
>> organisations or individuals you name, but also the work - and what
>> I believe to be the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein
>>>> <gurstein at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others
>>>>> on the
>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social
>>>>> and
>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document
>>>>> meant to
>>>>> have global significance?
>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-t
>>>>   urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is
>>> JNC's
>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual
>>> position of
>>> JNC.
>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human
>>> right,
>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently
>>> implemented
>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be
>>> democratic.
>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this
>>> as
>>> follows:
>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of
>>> the
>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism
>>> is
>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global
>>> governance
>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our
>>> foundational
>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which
>>> are
>>> democratic *and* participative.
>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims
>>> is
>>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>>> participative.
>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an
>>> earlier
>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ...
>>> the
>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite
>>> full
>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response
>>> (which
>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>> http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/db5d5d56/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Fri Mar  6 13:45:19 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:45:19 -0800
Subject: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
 at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)
In-Reply-To: <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
Message-ID: <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>

On 6/03/2015 2:12 am, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Jeremy Malcolm of EFF [1], tweeting as @qirtaiba, has made the
> following claim on twitter in the context of the UNESCO Connecting the
> Dots conference [2] in Paris:
>
>     Pondering whether to object to JNC’s addition of “democratic”
>     before multi-stakeholder which is code for maintaining primacy of
>     governments 
>
> More recently he has also repeated essentially the same claim in a
> blogpost [3].

And Anriette who was in the drafting committee subsequently verified
that the way in which I claimed that wording would be interpreted at the
UN was, indeed, the way the wording was being interpreted.

> However, what Jeremy claims is the view of the Just Net Coalition (JNC)
> [4] on “democratic multi-stakeholderism” is not in any way an actual
> position of JNC.

So let me get this straight: you are happy to accept global
multi-stakeholder governance where there is consensus (including of
governments), but where there isn't, then national parliaments get to
decide.  Well, I'm glad we cleared that up, then.

> [In case someone might be wondering whether Jeremy might simply have
> forgotten about my concrete proposal for making Internet governance
> inclusive as well as democratic: I don’t think so, because Jeremy’s
> other recent blogpost [7] is so full of factually false assertions in
> relation to JNC and some of the most active people in JNC (including
> myself) that explaining it all as an honest mistake is in my view
> clearly no longer possible. A point-by-point response to that older
> blogpost is here. [8]]

I didn't bother responding to that earlier "rebuttal" before because it
addresses precisely none of my core points.  There are also no factually
false assertions that I'm aware of.  I didn't reveal my source for the
information about the funder who asked why certain people weren't
invited to your meeting; this is also the same source that told me you
had received money from ThoughtWorks.  If that source was wrong then,
sorry.  I do however, at least, know for certain of individuals (not me)
who were specifically excluded from attending because of their views. 
About my visa, because I was an Australian citizen but living in
Malaysia, it took four weeks to obtain an Indian visa since they had to
send it to Canberra.  But this is really trivial stuff, and again, not
really worth responding to.

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/0acbb986/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From shawna at apc.org  Fri Mar  6 14:35:44 2015
From: shawna at apc.org (Shawna Finnegan)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:35:44 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Michael, Parminder

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I will try to respond to the
points that you have both raised, reminding you that I am speaking
from personal opinion, and not as an APC representative.

On 15-03-05 04:20 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in 
> discursive rather than declarative mode...
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan
> [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM To: Michael
> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at
> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> 
> 
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a
> global governance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?
> 
> 
> 
> */[MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite
> unclear as to which of the variety of stakeholder models is being
> proposed at any particular time or in any particular context, which
> of course is one of the major sources of hesitation that I have
> with these kinds of proposals.  Before entering into a decision
> making process and particularly one that will have real and
> potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the
> rules of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are
> they accountable to and how, what overall structures of
> accountability will be in place, what decision making
> rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so on. 
> Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it
> is rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into
> the meme and then take one's chances with whatever turns up re:
> what will actually occur in a specific decision making context.  My
> own experiences in attempting to participate in MS processes as
> evidenced in my blog give some indication at a micro-level of what
> is involved./*
> 
sf: That is an interesting analogy for multi-stakeholder processes. As
a relative newcomer, my impression is that the rules of the 'game' are
still being determined, based on some core principles. Given the
complexity of IG history, actors and spaces, as well as the technical
infrastructure and global politics, I am not at all surprised that
these processes continue to change and evolve in different contexts.

However you could certainly make the argument that CS should not
engage in any process without clearly defined rules and structures of
accountability, especially if there is a high risk of capture by
private interests. I'd argue that private interests would continue to
influence the rules to their benefit, but it would at least address
some issues of accountability.

This might be a good point to address Parminder's question to Anriette
on Feb 27:

"Say, for instance, it was found useful to write a global normative
document on the 'role on data in the society', which would enable
countries to begin understanding this new terrain in normative terms
and can help the necessary legislative and regulatory work. (There are
innumerable such important documents, like on health, education, etc
written regularly at UN bodies.) In order to make it more concrete,
let us say, UNESCO was asked to do it. Who do think should make and
decide on the final document - governments, or governments and
corporates on an equal footing?"

Why do you exclude civil society from the decision? My personal
perspective would be for the final document to be agreed upon by as
representative a group of stakeholders as possible. The role of data
in society will be understood differently by individuals within the
technical community, end users, academics, corporations and government
representatives, all relative to where they are in the world and what
their experiences have been. If the document is to have any real
significance, those affected by it must feel they have some ownership
over it, that their perspective of the role of data in society has
been somehow taken into consideration.

How could we go about this in practice? Intensive outreach. Start with
local discussion groups of different stakeholders, ideally open to
anyone interested. These groups could sugget key text, red lines,
whatever they think is important to consider for the document. A few
representatives (chosen by whatever method the group decides is fair)
could then take those views to national and regional discussion groups
of diverse stakeholders. From there another group of regional
representatives would be chosen to engage in drafting the document.
The text would be available online, and representatives at this global
drafting would be responsible for going back to their regional groups,
which would in turn communicate with national and local groups.

It is a complex, expensive and time-consuming proposal, but I think it
would be much more effective than a purely state based process.

> */ /*
> 
> */Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to
> know how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and
> not just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will.  My
> observation is that MS processes do not work very well at all when
> there is conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of
> the approach is one where participants are involved specifically
> because they come from different contexts with presumably different
> interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various
> kinds.  My observation is that when a MS process is subject to
> conflict or stress it immediately reverts to a defensive and
> control mode where privileged insiders close ranks, extrude the
> conflict (and its individual sources) and proceed as though nothing
> had occurred – in this way they are achieving consensus (which is
> of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects nothing more
> than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and
> satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond
> to divergent positions and interests./*

sf: Could you provide an example of an MS process subject to conflict
or stress that immediately reverted to defensive and controlled mode?
Was your interpretation that the CS involved were privileged insiders,
with their own interests?
> 
> */ /*
> 
> */Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite
> capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups
> since these groups have in most cases no obvious internal
> structures for ensuring appropriate levels of effective
> accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic
> elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage"
> these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able
> to do in the absence of some form of external (state based) 
> structures of enforcing accountability, transparency etc.  In the
> sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which
> ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of
> value.  Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil
> society (or government such as those found in many LDC’s for that
> matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and
> will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour
> of elite and dominant interests./*
> 
sf: I think here we again differ in our expectations of state based
structures of enforcing accountability. Government institutions may
have rules and structures to hold themselves accountable to the
people, but in practice they are incredibly vulnerable to those same
resources that you believe are irresistible to some civil society and
governments in MS processes. The risk of elite interests capturing
decision-making processes is high no matter what you do. Structures of
accountability only work if there is sustained engagement from people
outside the process, particularly civil society and media.

In this regard I think that some of the questions arising in this
UNESCO thread are extremely valuable to the ongoing accountability of
CS engaged in multi-stakeholder processes. Some questions, on the
other hand, are framed purely as accusations, and in my opinion are
intended to divide civil society.
> 
> 
> */ /*
> 
> I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US 
> government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing
> global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying
> societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a
> paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> */[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to
> redouble efforts to make democratic governance more effective and
> responsive rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that
> something (anything) might be better… /*

sf: Who is suggesting that we toss democratic governance?
> 
> 
> 
> */ /*
> 
> Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of 
> democratic pluralism.
> 
> 
> 
> */[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the 
> “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain./*

sf: I think the proposal that I suggested above for drafting a
document on the role of data in society is a good example of
democratic decision-making, with multiple layers of representation and
accountability.
> 
> */ /*
> 
> */ /*
> 
> Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the
> same way as democratic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> */[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at
> least the possibility of rectification.  With legitimized control
> by powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I
> can see at rectification.  Those interests are in fact legally
> obliged (under current law) to maximize their individual interests
> whatever the collective good.

sf: They maximize profit, so our recourse is to put their profit at
risk. It is not easy, particularly when choices are limited, but civil
society has had past success in pressuring companies to change their
behaviour for the benefit of the collective good.

I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter
> campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I 
> influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a
> phone number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision
> that they have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and
> more effective means for achieving democratic accountability and
> better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic
> decision making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have
> been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and
> struggle for an undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be
> a very good social trade off to be making./*
> 
sf: I still do not understand why you believe that engaging in
multi-stakeholder processes is effectively tossing out the gains made
in democratic decision-making.
> 
> 
> Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am
> surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional
> civil society grouping to shun an organization that did not
> actively endorse democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a
> fundamental principle. Democracy is a system of government. In
> practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate us and
> legitimize powerful interests.
> 
> */ /*
> 
> */[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics
> and structures of democratic governance from the norms and
> principles of democracy.

sf: Yes, it is necessary to separate in some way. but also to consider
whether and how the norms and principles of democracy have been
implemented in practice. If our existing structures have been wholly
insufficient to achieve the principles of democracy, then we must
seriously reconsider those structures.

Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may
> have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean
> that the aspiration of the people towards self-governance,
> empowerment, and social justice is not an appropriate aspiration
> which is to be lightly and cavalierly rejected in favour of
> governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving)
> elites./*
> 
sf: Why must we abandon aspirations towards self-governance,
empowerment and social justice in order to engage in multi-stakeholder
processes?
> 
> 
> I very much agree that decisions made by civil society
> organizations now, even if through non-action, will have
> significant consequences long-term. And I agree that sometimes
> civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Perhaps we should
> have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
> 
> */ /*
> 
> */[MG] yes../*

sf: I think this returns us to the point raised by Parminder on why CS
at the UNESCO meeting did not put their foot down against those who
said 'democracy has baggage' (in this context). If the individuals
present in the negotiations were representing our wider civil society,
and the consensus of our wider civil society is that democracy must be
included in all documents relating to internet governance, then
perhaps they should have walked out of the negotiations. However, I
don't think that there is necessarily consensus that democracy must be
included in all documents relating to internet governance,
particularly when the link is being made to a multilateral framing.
> 
> */ /*
> 
> */BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder
> governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably)
> other areas of governance.  Is this the official position of
> APC?/*

sf: You heard incorrectly. I am simply trying to understand how you
view MS processes to be in direct conflict with democracy, and am
poking a few holes in the perspective that governments are the ideal
gatekeepers of internet policy.

As for APC's official position, I believe that I addressed that
question with the excerpt I sent from the WGEC submission.

Looking forward to your thoughts,

Shawna
> 
> */ /*
> 
> */M/*
> 
> 
> 
> Shawna
> 
> 
> 
> On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
> 
> 
> 
>> Just a couple of things...
> 
> 
> 
>> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its
> 
>> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have
>> been
> 
>> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a
> 
>> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge,
>> to
> 
>> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in
>> the
> 
>> context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion
> 
>> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial
>> of
> 
>> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
> 
> 
> 
>> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear
> 
>> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of
> 
>> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a
>> clear
> 
>> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who
>> signed on
> 
>> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there
>> is a
> 
>> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those
>> who
> 
>> signed on to this agreement.
> 
> 
> 
>> And please be aware that this is not trivial...
> 
> 
> 
>> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that
>> they see
> 
>> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the
>> wide
> 
>> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in
> 
>> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of
>> "democracy"
> 
>> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration
>> of
> 
>> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global
> 
>> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
> 
> 
> 
>> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of
>> governance
> 
>> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means
>> that the
> 
>> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most
> 
>> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not
>> completely
> 
>> ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%.
>> Again is
> 
>> this APC's preferred position?
> 
> 
> 
>> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through
>> non-action
> 
>> rather than action will contribute to very significant
>> consequences in
> 
>> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and
>> others
> 
>> who are so blithely jumping on the MS
> 
>> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of
> 
>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of
>> their
> 
>> own normative structures...?
> 
> 
> 
>> Best,
> 
> 
> 
>> M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan
> 
>> [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael
> 
>> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
> 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at
> 
>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> 
> 
>> Dear Michael,
> 
> 
> 
>> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the
> 
>> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to
>> your
> 
>> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour
>> notions of
> 
>> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
> 
> 
> 
>> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has
>> been
> 
>> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various
> 
>> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether
>> it
> 
>> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we
>> support
> 
>> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and
>> actively
> 
>> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights
> 
>> Council.
> 
> 
> 
>> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing
> 
>> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced
> 
>> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder
>> participation
> 
>> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
> 
>> governance:
> 
> 
> 
>> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is
>> a
> 
>> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet
>> governance
> 
>> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the
>> Geneva
> 
>> Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and
> 
>> prosperous world.”
> 
> 
> 
>> (from our submission:
> 
>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf
>
>>  )
> 
> 
> 
>> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
> 
>> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC
> 
>> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect
>> change.
> 
> 
> 
>> Shawna
> 
> 
> 
>> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 
>>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off
>>> on by
> 
>>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference
>>> to
> 
>>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology
>>> of
> 
>>> "multistakeholderism
> 
>>> 
> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"
>
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> 
> 
> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of
> social
> 
>>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack
>>> of
> 
>>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite
>>> "demeaning"
> 
>>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of
>>> the
> 
>>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and
>>> equally
> 
>>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the
>>> Civil
> 
>>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus
>>> provide
> 
>>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document
>>> should I
> 
>>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent
> 
>>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being
> 
>>> evolved") in this sphere.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of
> 
>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of
>>> its own
> 
>>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> M
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From:
> 
>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
> 
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of
>>> Anriette
> 
>>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
> 
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> 
>>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>>> "Connecting
> 
>>> the Dots Conference"
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> Dear all
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> Just an explanation and some context.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role
>>> was to
> 
>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair
>>> and
> 
>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority
>>> of
> 
>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and
>>> onsite.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC
> 
>>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
> 
>>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which
> 
>>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final
>>> draft).
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for
>>> any
> 
>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the
> 
>>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked
> 
>>> directly to the Study.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and
>>> to
> 
>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final
>>> study
> 
>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome
>>> of the
> 
>>> discussion.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never
>>> really
> 
>>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic
>>> to
> 
>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the
> 
>>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks
>>> for
> 
>>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the
> 
>>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a
>>> very
> 
>>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so
> 
>>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is
>>> directly
> 
>>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs.
>>> This
> 
>>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can
>>> be
> 
>>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of
> 
>>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
> 
>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having
> 
>>> 'democratic'
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> in front of multistakeholder.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code
>>> for
> 
>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among
>>> governments') into
> 
>>> the text.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic
>>> multistakeholder',
> 
>>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that
>>> they
> 
>>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and
> 
>>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple
>>> spaces.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we
>>> could
> 
>>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a
>>> reference
> 
>>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could
>>> not
> 
>>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him
>>> that
> 
>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this
>>> seriously, but
> 
>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater
>>> than the
> 
>>> number of requests for putting it in.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are
>>> negotiated
> 
>>> in this way.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption
>>> as
> 
>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of
>>> expression in
> 
>>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence
>>> of the
> 
>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that
> 
>>> anonymity is illegitimate.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in
> 
>>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate
>>> the
> 
>>> gains vs. the losses.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
> 
>>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence
>>> in the
> 
>>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on
>>> its
> 
>>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more
>>> people
> 
>>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to
>>> learn,
> 
>>> participate and influence internet-related debates with
> 
>>> policy-makers.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really
>>> know
> 
>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive
>>> and they
> 
>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
> 
>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to
>>> be
> 
>>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> Anriette
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>>
> 
>>>> wrote:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein
>>>>> <gurstein at gmail.com
> 
>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>> wrote:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and
>>>>>> others on the
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and
>>>>>> "social and
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document
>>>>>> meant to
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>>> have global significance?
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to
>
>>>>>  -
> 
>>>>> 
> 
>>>>> 
> 
> t
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims
>>>> is
> 
>>>> JNC's
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual
>>>> position
> 
>>>> of
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> JNC.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must
>>>> be
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a
>>>> human
> 
>>>> right,
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently
>>>> implemented
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be
> 
>>>> democratic.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states
>>>> this as
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> follows:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard
>>>> to
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of
>>>> the
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which
>>>> multistakeholderism is
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global
> 
>>>> governance
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our
>>>> foundational
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet
>>>> which are
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> democratic *and* participative.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy
>>>> claims is
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of
>>>> government-led
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> participative.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> Is that so hard to understand???
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an
>>>> earlier
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed
>>>> ... the
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be
>>>> quite
> 
>>>> full
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my
>>>> response
> 
>>>> (which
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> Greetings,
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> Norbert
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> http://JustNetCoalition.org
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> 
>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> Translate this email:
>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
>>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You
> 
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To
> unsubscribe or change your settings,
> 
>>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=MVDF
-----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 erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Fri Mar  6 15:34:45 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:34:45 +0000
Subject: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
 at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)
In-Reply-To: <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
 <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>,<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578A88@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Seriously, this is outstanding: "So let me get this straight: you are happy to accept global multi-stakeholder governance where there is consensus (including of governments), but where there isn't, then national parliaments get to decide.  Well, I'm glad we cleared that up, then."

Jeremy, have you ever looked into the debate on "delegated/implementing acts"? It's a particular sub-category of problems of subsidiarity in the EU legal order.

You know, that 'as close as possible' thing.

//Erik

________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jmalcolm at eff.org]
Sent: Friday 6 March 2015 19:45
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)

On 6/03/2015 2:12 am, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Jeremy Malcolm of EFF [1], tweeting as @qirtaiba, has made the
> following claim on twitter in the context of the UNESCO Connecting the
> Dots conference [2] in Paris:
>
>     Pondering whether to object to JNC’s addition of “democratic”
>     before multi-stakeholder which is code for maintaining primacy of
>     governments
>
> More recently he has also repeated essentially the same claim in a
> blogpost [3].

And Anriette who was in the drafting committee subsequently verified
that the way in which I claimed that wording would be interpreted at the
UN was, indeed, the way the wording was being interpreted.

> However, what Jeremy claims is the view of the Just Net Coalition (JNC)
> [4] on “democratic multi-stakeholderism” is not in any way an actual
> position of JNC.

So let me get this straight: you are happy to accept global
multi-stakeholder governance where there is consensus (including of
governments), but where there isn't, then national parliaments get to
decide.  Well, I'm glad we cleared that up, then.

> [In case someone might be wondering whether Jeremy might simply have
> forgotten about my concrete proposal for making Internet governance
> inclusive as well as democratic: I don’t think so, because Jeremy’s
> other recent blogpost [7] is so full of factually false assertions in
> relation to JNC and some of the most active people in JNC (including
> myself) that explaining it all as an honest mistake is in my view
> clearly no longer possible. A point-by-point response to that older
> blogpost is here. [8]]

I didn't bother responding to that earlier "rebuttal" before because it
addresses precisely none of my core points.  There are also no factually
false assertions that I'm aware of.  I didn't reveal my source for the
information about the funder who asked why certain people weren't
invited to your meeting; this is also the same source that told me you
had received money from ThoughtWorks.  If that source was wrong then,
sorry.  I do however, at least, know for certain of individuals (not me)
who were specifically excluded from attending because of their views.
About my visa, because I was an Australian citizen but living in
Malaysia, it took four weeks to obtain an Indian visa since they had to
send it to Canberra.  But this is really trivial stuff, and again, not
really worth responding to.

--
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  6 16:23:06 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:23:06 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
Message-ID: <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>

Shawna,

 

Inline 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org] 
Sent: March 6, 2015 11:36 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

 

Dear Michael, Parminder

 

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I will try to respond to the points that you have both raised, reminding you that I am speaking from personal opinion, and not as an APC representative.

 

On 15-03-05 04:20 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> 

> */[MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite unclear 

> as to which of the variety of stakeholder models is being proposed at 

> any particular time or in any particular context, which of course is 

> one of the major sources of hesitation that I have with these kinds of 

> proposals.  Before entering into a decision making process and 

> particularly one that will have real and potentially very significant 

> consequences I want to know what the rules of the game are. Who is 

> involved, where they came, who are they accountable to and how, what 

> overall structures of accountability will be in place, what decision 

> making rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so on.

> Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it is 

> rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into the 

> meme and then take one's chances with whatever turns up re:

> what will actually occur in a specific decision making context.  My 

> own experiences in attempting to participate in MS processes as 

> evidenced in my blog give some indication at a micro-level of what is 

> involved./*

> 

sf: That is an interesting analogy for multi-stakeholder processes. As a relative newcomer, my impression is that the rules of the 'game' are still being determined, based on some core principles. Given the complexity of IG history, actors and spaces, as well as the technical infrastructure and global politics, I am not at all surprised that these processes continue to change and evolve in different contexts.

 

However you could certainly make the argument that CS should not engage in any process without clearly defined rules and structures of accountability, especially if there is a high risk of capture by private interests.

 

[MG] yes

 

I'd argue that private interests would continue to influence the rules to their benefit, but it would at least address some issues of accountability.

 

[MG] I'm not sure that I understand your point here... Is that CS (or anyone) should engage in MS processes even if they are undefined, and "without clearly defined rules and structures of accountability" on the (dare I say) probably rather remote possibility of being able to "address some issues of accountability"... unfortunately I fear, a rather David and Goliath struggle where David doesn't even have a workable slingshot...

 

This might be a good point to address Parminder's question to Anriette on Feb 27:

 

"Say, for instance, it was found useful to write a global normative document on the 'role on data in the society', which would enable countries to begin understanding this new terrain in normative terms and can help the necessary legislative and regulatory work. (There are innumerable such important documents, like on health, education, etc written regularly at UN bodies.) In order to make it more concrete, let us say, UNESCO was asked to do it. Who do think should make and decide on the final document - governments, or governments and corporates on an equal footing?"

 

Why do you exclude civil society from the decision? My personal perspective would be for the final document to be agreed upon by as representative a group of stakeholders as possible. The role of data in society will be understood differently by individuals within the technical community, end users, academics, corporations and government representatives, all relative to where they are in the world and what their experiences have been. If the document is to have any real significance, those affected by it must feel they have some ownership over it, that their perspective of the role of data in society has been somehow taken into consideration.

 

How could we go about this in practice? Intensive outreach. Start with local discussion groups of different stakeholders, ideally open to anyone interested. These groups could sugget key text, red lines, whatever they think is important to consider for the document. A few representatives (chosen by whatever method the group decides is fair) could then take those views to national and regional discussion groups of diverse stakeholders. From there another group of regional representatives would be chosen to engage in drafting the document.

The text would be available online, and representatives at this global drafting would be responsible for going back to their regional groups, which would in turn communicate with national and local groups.

 

It is a complex, expensive and time-consuming proposal, but I think it would be much more effective than a purely state based process.

 

[MG] This is an interesting and useful proposal and certainly worth considering and experimenting with... But I think what you have described is a multi-stakeholder consultation process which I completely support and in fact think is absolutely necessary for reasons I outline in this blogpost https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/  This, perhaps you will agree, is quite some distance from the process you are describing coming up with for example a firm and enforceable policy/legislation for example concerning data privacy or freedom of expression/censorship.

 

> */ /*

> 

> */Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know 

> how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not 

> just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will.  My observation 

> is that MS processes do not work very well at all when there is 

> conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of the approach 

> is one where participants are involved specifically because they come 

> from different contexts with presumably different interests which will 

> inevitably result in conflicts of various kinds.  My observation is 

> that when a MS process is subject to conflict or stress it immediately 

> reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged insiders 

> close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) and 

> proceed as though nothing had occurred – in this way they are 

> achieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus 

> which reflects nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a 

> way of reconciling (and

> satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to 

> divergent positions and interests./*

 

sf: Could you provide an example of an MS process subject to conflict or stress that immediately reverted to defensive and controlled mode?

Was your interpretation that the CS involved were privileged insiders, with their own interests?

 

[MG] https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/

 

I should also note that the much vaunted model multistakeholder process at the NetMundial event in Brazil did more or less precisely the same thing--giving over to an unrepresentative and more or less completely non-transparent academic grouping -- GIGAnet -- responsibility for "academic" participation in the various NM structures. 

 

GIGAnet then  went on to assign all of the relevant places to GIGAnet insiders over the objections of the academic component of the Community Informatics community (a grouping numbering some 1500 of which perhaps 40% are academics or researchers with a professional interest in ICTs and Development, a subject more or less completely absent in the GIGAnet membership).  

 

These actions were confirmed by the silence of the NM organizers (the issue was brought firmly to their attention).  The direct consequence of this was that the NM meeting and subsequent document more or less completely ignores the significant issues involved in ICTs and Development and which moreover were as I'm sure you know, the fundamental driver of WSIS of which the NM was meant to be some sort of a descendent.

> 

> */ /*

> 

> */Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite 

> capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups since 

> these groups have in most cases no obvious internal structures for 

> ensuring appropriate levels of effective 

> accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites 

> since these have the resources to participate and "manage"

> these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to 

> do in the absence of some form of external (state based) structures of 

> enforcing accountability, transparency etc.  In the sphere of Internet 

> Governance we are talking about decisions which ultimately will impact 

> billions and even trillions of dollars of value.  Do you really think 

> that an under or non-resourced civil society (or government such as 

> those found in many LDC’s for that

> matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and 

> will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour of 

> elite and dominant interests./*

> 

sf: I think here we again differ in our expectations of state based structures of enforcing accountability. Government institutions may have rules and structures to hold themselves accountable to the people, but in practice they are incredibly vulnerable to those same resources that you believe are irresistible to some civil society and governments in MS processes. The risk of elite interests capturing decision-making processes is high no matter what you do. Structures of accountability only work if there is sustained engagement from people outside the process, particularly civil society and media.

 

[MG] I completely agree but with effective and "sustained engagement from people outside the process, particularly civil society and media" who, over the long run do you think can be made to be accountable--Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon or an elected government?

 

In this regard I think that some of the questions arising in this UNESCO thread are extremely valuable to the ongoing accountability of CS engaged in multi-stakeholder processes. Some questions, on the other hand, are framed purely as accusations, and in my opinion are intended to divide civil society.

 

[MG] But if certain CS organizations are prepared to collaborate with certain governments and others in the broad based attempt to suppress democracy (in Internet Governance and elsewhere) and substitute elite (MS) decision making in its place, then perhaps it is a good thing for others not directly involved in these processes to see who is collaborating in these efforts and who isn't.

 

> 

> 

> */ /*

> 

> I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US 

> government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing 

> global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying 

> societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a 

> paradigm.

> 

> 

> 

> */[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble 

> efforts to make democratic governance more effective and responsive 

> rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) 

> might be better… /*

 

sf: Who is suggesting that we toss democratic governance?

 

[MG] Isn't that what Anriette and other have said happened in the drafting group for the UNESCO statement (and which is directly evidenced by the absence of any reference to democracy and Internet Governance  in the final statement) and which was a red line which she and others apparently representing Civil Society were prepared to cross.

> 

> 

> Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of 

> democratic pluralism.

> 

> 

> 

> */[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the 

> “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain./*

 

sf: I think the proposal that I suggested above for drafting a document on the role of data in society is a good example of democratic decision-making, with multiple layers of representation and accountability.

 

[MG] As I noted above the example you have given is one of consultation not of decision making.

> 

> */ /*

> 

> */ /*

> 

> Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the 

> same way as democratic processes.

> 

> 

> 

> */[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at 

> least the possibility of rectification.  With legitimized control by 

> powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I can see 

> at rectification.  Those interests are in fact legally obliged (under 

> current law) to maximize their individual interests whatever the 

> collective good.

 

sf: They maximize profit, so our recourse is to put their profit at risk. It is not easy, particularly when choices are limited, but civil society has had past success in pressuring companies to change their behaviour for the benefit of the collective good.

 

[MG] No question but this is hardly a substitute for achieving enforceable laws backed by state sanctions which would cover not all companies and circumstances rather than just the very few that CS would have the resources and capacity to influence. This has been the traditional direction for civil society action world-wide and the reason why CS has been so active in support of democracy and attempting to ensure the effectiveness and accountability of democratic structures of governance… Honestly I see no reason why in the Internet Governance sphere this approach should be abandoned, do you? 

 

I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter

> campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I 

> influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a phone 

> number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision that they 

> have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and more 

> effective means for achieving democratic accountability and better and 

> more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic decision 

> making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have been 

> achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an 

> undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be a very good social 

> trade off to be making./*

> 

sf: I still do not understand why you believe that engaging in multi-stakeholder processes is effectively tossing out the gains made in democratic decision-making.

 

[MG] Of course I don’t see that MS processes would result in a “tossing out of gains made in democratic decision-making”… I’m quite sure that no citizenry in the world would allow that… what I’m arguing is that there is a concerted attempt to replace democratic structures of decision-making by MS processes of decision making going forward which is something quite different and which actions such as those of the USG and its allies in this very specific context are to my mind a clear indication of.

> 

> 

> Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am 

> surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional civil 

> society grouping to shun an organization that did not actively endorse 

> democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental 

> principle. Democracy is a system of government. In practice, that 

> system has been used as a tool to placate us and legitimize powerful 

> interests.

> 

> */ /*

> 

> */[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics 

> and structures of democratic governance from the norms and principles 

> of democracy.

 

sf: Yes, it is necessary to separate in some way. but also to consider whether and how the norms and principles of democracy have been implemented in practice. If our existing structures have been wholly insufficient to achieve the principles of democracy, then we must seriously reconsider those structures.

 

[MG] I agree… but that doesn’t mean that we jettison fundamental norms and principles of democracy in the process. What it means rather is that we need to redouble our efforts at designing effective structures and making existing structures work better.  Tossing out 1000 years of struggle towards democratic accountability in favour of a completely unknown and shape-shifting set of memes such as multi-stakeholderism seems to me to be foolhardy in the extreme and more likely to be serving the interests of the few who are in a position as “key stakeholders” to derive direct benefits from such a change than to provide any advantage or benefit to the many.

 

Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may

> have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean that 

> the aspiration of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and 

> social justice is not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly 

> and cavalierly rejected in favour of governance by self-selected (and 

> ultimately self-serving)

> elites./*

> 

sf: Why must we abandon aspirations towards self-governance, empowerment and social justice in order to engage in multi-stakeholder processes?

 

[MG] Perhaps you could explain to me or even better point me to instances where MS processes have enabled “self-governance, empowerment and social justice” rather than ensuring outcomes move in exactly the opposite direction.  The MS processes that I’ve seen have all been those moving in the opposite direction.

> 

> 

> I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations 

> now, even if through non-action, will have significant consequences 

> long-term. And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out 

> of negotiations. Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an 

> important discussion to have.

> 

> */ /*

> 

> */[MG] yes../*

 

sf: I think this returns us to the point raised by Parminder on why CS at the UNESCO meeting did not put their foot down against those who said 'democracy has baggage' (in this context). If the individuals present in the negotiations were representing our wider civil society, and the consensus of our wider civil society is that democracy must be included in all documents relating to internet governance, then perhaps they should have walked out of the negotiations. However, I don't think that there is necessarily consensus that democracy must be included in all documents relating to internet governance, particularly when the link is being made to a multilateral framing.

 

[MG] Democracy is democracy… if one is attempting to characterize Internet Governance it is either democratic or it is not… In this instance the decision was clearly made that it would not be characterized by democratic structures/processes. The issue of “multilateral framing” is a complete red herring… If some choose to link democracy with multilateral processes in their own minds that is their problem and should not become a determining factor in other people’s minds or decision making.  Words say what they say.

> 

> */ /*

> 

> */BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder 

> governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other 

> areas of governance.  Is this the official position of

> APC?/*

 

sf: You heard incorrectly. I am simply trying to understand how you view MS processes to be in direct conflict with democracy, 

 

[MG] I’ve been extremely clear in these list based discussion, in my blogposts and in various other interventions… I don’t think that MS consultation processes are in direct conflict with democracy but I do think that MS decision processes are.  

 

 

and am poking a few holes in the perspective that governments are the ideal gatekeepers of internet policy.

 

[MG] I have never said nor implied any such thing! I believe that democracy (not governments) is and needs to be the “ideal gatekeeper of Internet policy”, precisely how that democratically anchored decision making takes place will vary from circumstance to circumstance (including democratic practice through and by governments) and should be actively evolved in current circumstances given the oft noted (by me and others) failings of current democratic practice and further given the opportunities for enhanced democratic practice through the effective application of ICTs.

 

 

As for APC's official position, I believe that I addressed that question with the excerpt I sent from the WGEC submission.

 

[MG] okay

 

M

 

Looking forward to your thoughts,

 

Shawna

> 

> */ /*

> 

> */M/*

> 

> 

> 

> Shawna

> 

> 

> 

> On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> 

>> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...

> 

> 

> 

>> Just a couple of things...

> 

> 

> 

>> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its

> 

>> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have 

>> been

> 

>> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a

> 

>> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to

> 

>> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the

> 

>> context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion

> 

>> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of

> 

>> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.

> 

> 

> 

>> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear

> 

>> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of

> 

>> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear

> 

>> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed 

>> on

> 

>> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is 

>> a

> 

>> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who

> 

>> signed on to this agreement.

> 

> 

> 

>> And please be aware that this is not trivial...

> 

> 

> 

>> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they 

>> see

> 

>> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide

> 

>> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in

> 

>> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy"

> 

>> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of

> 

>> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global

> 

>> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?

> 

> 

> 

>> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of 

>> governance

> 

>> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means that 

>> the

> 

>> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most

> 

>> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely

> 

>> ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%.

>> Again is

> 

>> this APC's preferred position?

> 

> 

> 

>> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through 

>> non-action

> 

>> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences 

>> in

> 

>> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and 

>> others

> 

>> who are so blithely jumping on the MS

> 

>> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of

> 

>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their

> 

>> own normative structures...?

> 

> 

> 

>> Best,

> 

> 

> 

>> M

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan

> 

>> [ <mailto:shawna at apc.org> mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael

> 

>> Gurstein Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

> < <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;

> 

>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at

> 

>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> 

> 

>> Dear Michael,

> 

> 

> 

>> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the

> 

>> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your

> 

>> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions 

>> of

> 

>> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.

> 

> 

> 

>> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been

> 

>> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various

> 

>> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it

> 

>> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support

> 

>> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and 

>> actively

> 

>> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights

> 

>> Council.

> 

> 

> 

>> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing

> 

>> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced

> 

>> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation

> 

>> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet

> 

>> governance:

> 

> 

> 

>> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a

> 

>> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance

> 

>> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva

> 

>> Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and

> 

>> prosperous world.”

> 

> 

> 

>> (from our submission:

> 

>>  <http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pd> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pd

>> f

> 

>>  )

> 

> 

> 

>> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'

> 

>> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC

> 

>> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.

> 

> 

> 

>> Shawna

> 

> 

> 

>> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> 

>>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off

>>> on by

> 

>>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference

>>> to

> 

>>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology

>>> of

> 

>>> "multistakeholderism

> 

>>> 

> < <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/> https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"

> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

> 

> 

>>> 

> 

> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of

> social

> 

>>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack

>>> of

> 

>>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite

>>> "demeaning"

> 

>>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of

>>> the

> 

>>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and

>>> equally

> 

>>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the

>>> Civil

> 

>>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus

>>> provide

> 

>>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document

>>> should I

> 

>>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent

> 

>>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being

> 

>>> evolved") in this sphere.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of

> 

>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of

>>> its own

> 

>>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> M

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> -----Original Message----- From:

> 

>>>  <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net

> < <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>

> 

>>> [ <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of

>>> Anriette

> 

>>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:

> 

>>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

> Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

> < <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

> 

>>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of

>>> "Connecting

> 

>>> the Dots Conference"

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> Dear all

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> Just an explanation and some context.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role

>>> was to

> 

>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair

>>> and

> 

>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority

>>> of

> 

>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and

>>> onsite.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC

> 

>>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the

> 

>>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which

> 

>>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final

>>> draft).

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for

>>> any

> 

>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the

> 

>>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked

> 

>>> directly to the Study.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and

>>> to

> 

>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final

>>> study

> 

>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome

>>> of the

> 

>>> discussion.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never

>>> really

> 

>>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic

>>> to

> 

>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the

> 

>>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks

>>> for

> 

>>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the

> 

>>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a

>>> very

> 

>>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so

> 

>>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is

>>> directly

> 

>>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs.

>>> This

> 

>>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can

>>> be

> 

>>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of

> 

>>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back

> 

>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having

> 

>>> 'democratic'

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> in front of multistakeholder.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code

>>> for

> 

>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among

>>> governments') into

> 

>>> the text.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic

>>> multistakeholder',

> 

>>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that

>>> they

> 

>>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and

> 

>>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple

>>> spaces.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we

>>> could

> 

>>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a

>>> reference

> 

>>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could

>>> not

> 

>>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him

>>> that

> 

>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this

>>> seriously, but

> 

>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater

>>> than the

> 

>>> number of requests for putting it in.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are

>>> negotiated

> 

>>> in this way.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption

>>> as

> 

>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of

>>> expression in

> 

>>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence

>>> of the

> 

>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that

> 

>>> anonymity is illegitimate.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in

> 

>>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate

>>> the

> 

>>> gains vs. the losses.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.

> 

>>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence

>>> in the

> 

>>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on

>>> its

> 

>>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more

>>> people

> 

>>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to

>>> learn,

> 

>>> participate and influence internet-related debates with

> 

>>> policy-makers.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really

>>> know

> 

>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive

>>> and they

> 

>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or

> 

>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to

>>> be

> 

>>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> Anriette

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org

> < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>>

> 

>>>> wrote:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein

>>>>> <gurstein at gmail.com

> 

>>> < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>> wrote:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and

>>>>>> others on the

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and

>>>>>> "social and

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document

>>>>>> meant to

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>>> have global significance?

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>>  <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to

> 

>>>>>  -

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>>>> 

> 

> t

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims

>>>> is

> 

>>>> JNC's

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual

>>>> position

> 

>>>> of

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> JNC.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must

>>>> be

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a

>>>> human

> 

>>>> right,

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently

>>>> implemented

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be

> 

>>>> democratic.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states

>>>> this as

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> follows:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard

>>>> to

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of

>>>> the

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which

>>>> multistakeholderism is

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global

> 

>>>> governance

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our

>>>> foundational

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet

>>>> which are

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> democratic *and* participative.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy

>>>> claims is

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of

>>>> government-led

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> participative.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> Is that so hard to understand???

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an

>>>> earlier

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed

>>>> ... the

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be

>>>> quite

> 

>>>> full

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my

>>>> response

> 

>>>> (which

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>  <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> Greetings,

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> Norbert

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>  <http://JustNetCoalition.org> http://JustNetCoalition.org

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> ____________________________________________________________

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

> 

>>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>  <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> Translate this email:

>>>>  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t> http://translate.google.com/translate_t

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> ____________________________________________________________

>>> You

> 

>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> 

>>>  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

>>> < <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To

> unsubscribe or change your settings,

> 

>>> visit:  <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

> 

>>> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1

 

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+gGPAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKT/kL/1AVB2elHc3cWbgrNtyqLlyF

6A5/Pp+1wXupLU90KOqrXtnfizQeTUlocazv/2ywf5KyjAHeFpk0Z8kzf0Ik2iwh

maZ83sm9bh9hlJ74ZFCmHh9nuvUOnmT4u+dBxSQHhx9T3UKiHM8pAOtQJFNoG7dH

KlhyeszzYoeyCm+9/h7nBjVRmcpkkts+hUM/fFXLSRRMgLIVbWS2/Wj01pgZehbI

puWiPfO4ucSFusN/Ny38KRWS0zdQCCW0QczeTRJE4EHRjpKV06Jpgao99nX2mkVH

WWQUdWEoMpyLfPEpzjAqZRIMTKjg+zbyyaXgBPe+AACd7K6kgx69dlIvcsTCDkk8

YslRB5yZmo4WO05mXXWMOtZ+h5/iVpNJWZCzBgGB0/vVldMm593/qZOqgixpweks

FUxHvzpon0aqEUm2PCAV1Rr8TjOOmUHpwQvSgLWCVr8Ro32pxmVnuKU+XH8k3nc0

DxY7+D2Da+uBkax/NSXSW5vN+Ri/JY7Ghum5+03eKw==

=MVDF

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/b91adade/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Mar  6 18:31:02 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:31:02 -0800
Subject: [governance] [Members] One view of what happened at the UNESCO
 conference
In-Reply-To: <007601d05864$36758630$a3609290$@gmail.com>
References: <006101d0584f$8bc182c0$a3448840$@ch> <007601d05864$36758630$a3609290$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008801d05865$9c944bd0$d5bce370$@gmail.com>

Richard doesn't subscribe to either of these lists so I'm passing this along
on his behalf.

Please note that the issue of the suppression of the terminology of
"democracy" in the UNESCO statement is not simply about words.  It is more
directly about the attempt to suppress or replace democratic practice with
multistakeholderism initially in areas of Internet Governance but (based on
published USG documents) in a wide range of global (and presumably other)
decision making processes.  Thus the "red line" that was crossed by various
parties (presumably by some, without thinking through its significance) in
agreeing to or supporting this suppression process is of much deeper and
wider ranging significance than one isolated document in a flurry of other
documents. 

I would expect, given this and the below that various individuals and
organizations particularly but not exclusively in civil society might wish
to disavow themselves of the Outcome Statement and thus disassociate
themselves from this blatant attempt at shifting the global decision making
paradigm from one that is based on a foundation of democratic norms and
aspirations to one anchored in elite based multi-stakeholder decision
processes.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Members [mailto:members-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Hill
Sent: March 6, 2015 12:53 PM
To: members at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: [Members] One view of what happened at the UNESCO conference

Dear all,

Here is the chronological account of what I experienced happened at the
UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference. I have the various E-Mails referred
to below, in case anybody wants to see them.  I also have a record of the
amendments that I proposed verbally.

I only kept careful track of my interventions and comments regarding my
interventions, so I focus on that here. But other JNC members made
interventions. So they may wish to add to this record of what happened.

3 March, 18h30: during the drafting group session, I proposed text changes
to ensure that the references to human rights referred to all human rights,
not just some, and to include the word democracy. There was no opposition to
my proposals regarding human rights. Jeremy Malcolm objected to the
inclusion of democracy on the grounds that it brought in baggage. The US
supported Jeremy's objection.

I had informal conversations with Jeremy and the US after the session.
Jeremy listened but didn't say much. The US said that they could not accept
inclusion of democracy because it could refer to multi-lateral. I asked them
to provide alternate language. They said they were not prepared to do that.

3 March, 19h15: E-mail from R. Hill suggesting that the preamble of the
outcome statement refer to all human rights, not just some. Exact text was
proposed.

3 March, 20h15: E-mail from R. Hill stating that democracy is a fundamental
right and so should be reflected in the outcome statement. I suggested two
possible formulations.

4 March, 08h05: E-Mail from R. Hill again stating that democracy is
fundamental and proposing an alternative way of incorporating the concept.

4 March, 08h10: E-Mail from R. Hill confirming the previous proposal to
reword to reflect that all human rights must be respected, not just some.

4 March, 11h15: during breakout session 16, Options for Future Action-2, I
brought up the democracy issue, stating that it is a fundamental right and
that it should be included in the outcome statement. There were no
objections and the chairman agreed to present this to the last plenary
session.

4 March, 13h00: during the drafting group session, I presented the proposals
regarding human rights and democracy. There were no objections to my
proposals regarding human rights. There was one statement of support for my
proposal regarding democracy, and only one objection. Sweden objected to its
inclusion stating that the term "is ill-defined and adds a lot of baggage".
Much later, towards the end of the session, the US stated that it supported
Sweden regarding not including democracy.

At this session, there were numerous interventions from civil society to
improve the language regarding privacy, intermediary liability, and other
topics; and to add network neutrality. I supported the suggestions to
strengthen the language regarding privacy. New Zealand and the US objected
to making changes regarding privacy. There were objections regarding network
neutrality. I don't recall that any opposition was expressed regarding the
other changes. I was operating under the assumption that silence implied
consent so, given the short amount of time allocated to the session, I
didn't make interventions to support proposals for which there were no
objections.

After the session, I informed Anriette that including democracy was a
red-line issue for JNC. She said that not including it was a red-line issue
for many member states. They had sent their comments by E-Mail to the
secretariat, so they were not public.

4 March, 14h00: at the plenary session, the chairman of breakout session 16
did not mention the democracy issue in his summary of the session. I took
the floor to state that the topic had been discussed and that the session
had agreed to present it to plenary, with a recommendation that "democracy"
be included in the outcome statement. The chairman confirmed that this was
correct. There were no objections or comments from the floor. In my view,
consequently, the plenary had accepted inclusion of democracy in the outcome
statement.

After the session, I informed the secretariat that inclusion of democracy
was a red-line issue for JNC and suggested that we try to find compromise
language. The secretariat said that they would see what they could do, but
never got back to me.

4 March 15h40: the final draft became available. Democracy was not included,
nor were any of the other changes requested by me and JNC, nor were many of
the changes proposed by civil society. The proposed changes to avoid "cherry
picking" of human rights were not included, even though no opposition to
those changes had been expressed in the drafting sessions.

I again informed the secretariat that the non-inclusion of democracy was not
acceptable for JNC, so that we would be forced to make a statement of formal
opposition. The secretariat attempted to convince me not do to that. I said
that I had no choice.

4 March 16h00: at the final plenary, the chairman introduced the outcome
statement. I raised my hand. The chairman and secretariat must have seen it,
but the chairman proposed to proceed directly to approval. I was forced to
speak up to ask for the floor. The chairman gave me the floor and I made my
statement of opposition. After that, the chairman declared that the outcome
statement had been approved by consensus.







_______________________________________________
Members mailing list



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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Mar  6 19:53:14 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:53:14 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?FW=3A_=5BIP=5D_New_Zealand=E2=80=99s_Mass_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?Surveillance_of_Pacific_States_Exposed_=7C_The_Diplomat?=
In-Reply-To: <CAKx4trhO-BG3_Dy2EfnuLOceQOvqh0XYiJ6kbr0tzBNiD083JQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trhO-BG3_Dy2EfnuLOceQOvqh0XYiJ6kbr0tzBNiD083JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002b01d05871$19baddd0$4d309970$@gmail.com>

From: Dave Farber via ip [mailto:ip at listbox.com] 
Sent: March 6, 2015 4:37 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] New Zealand’s Mass Surveillance of Pacific States Exposed | The Diplomat

 

http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/new-zealands-mass-surveillance-of-pacific-states-exposed/


 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives  <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3> |  <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308> Modify Your Subscription |  <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150306193714:179BAD10-C462-11E4-A435-ED55CE564A76> Unsubscribe Now 

 <http://www.listbox.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/66179142/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/66179142/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  7 00:09:56 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:09:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>

This Connecting the Dots conference was more of a Dotting the I's, to make
sure the message was clear

The outcome document was endorsed by applause, à la Net Mundial, without
signatories.

By diktat, "democracy" is now incompatible with multi-stakeholder.

This confirms that "multi-stakeholder" is window-dressing, since it clearly
means *multi-stakeholdup* of UN by the USG.
  .
Cheers. Louis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/d694d5a5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Sat Mar  7 02:30:56 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 08:30:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to deepen their understanding.

Wolfgang Benedek



Von: "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com<mailto:pouzin at well.com>>
Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com<mailto:pouzin at well.com>>
Datum: Samstag, 07. März 2015 06:09
An: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

This Connecting the Dots conference was more of a Dotting the I's, to make sure the message was clear

The outcome document was endorsed by applause, à la Net Mundial, without signatories.

By diktat, "democracy" is now incompatible with multi-stakeholder.

This confirms that "multi-stakeholder" is window-dressing, since it clearly means multi-stakeholdup of UN by the USG.
  .
Cheers. Louis.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/ddc5671d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Mar  7 05:54:32 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 11:54:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
 at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)
In-Reply-To: <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20150307115432.743da728@quill>

Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> So let me get this straight: you are happy to accept global
> multi-stakeholder governance where there is consensus (including of
> governments), but where there isn't, then national parliaments get to
> decide.   

Yes, absolutely. In fact it's part of the public record that I've been
proposing this for a couple of years.

Nota bene, while this proposal is consistent with JNC's understanding
of the word "democratic", it's at the current stage still just a
personal proposal from me. JNC has not yet endorsed any concrete
proposal or proposals for implementing our demand for "platforms and
mechanisms for global governance of the Internet that are democratic
and participative".

In JNC we have started quite some time ago to work on a paper on
democratic governance in the context of the Internet, but this is not
finished yet. I will let this list know when it has been published.

By the way, I have just updated the summary of the proposal on
http://WisdomTaskForce.org/ with a couple of paragraphs of explanation
on why IMO, open-participation consensus-seeking processes can in this
way be effectively applied to the challenges of developing *global*
public policy, without overlooking the fact that it is not always
possible to reach consensus.


> Well, I'm glad we cleared that up, then.  

Do I understand you right that you will support the demand that
multistakeholder governance must be conducted in a manner which is
democratic, if a wording can be found which makes clear that
"democratic" is meant in the sense of the literal meaning of the word
and not as any kind of coded language for "maintaining primacy of
governments" or for multilateralism?

I would have thought that putting the word "democratic" next to the
word "multistakeholder" already makes abundantly clear that there it
cannot possibly mean anything like "maintaining primacy of
governments".

But sure, why not look for an even clearer way to express the demand
that global multistakeholder governance of public policy matters must be
really, really democratic, in the sense of the real meaning of the word.

Proposals for good formulations (i.e. formulations which really, really
cannot be misinterpreted as coded language for anything else, and which
also don't overuse a word like "really" like I've just done) are very
welcome.


In relation to the meeting in Delhi from which JNC emerged, Jeremy
wrote:
> I do however, at least, know for
> certain of individuals (not me) who were specifically excluded from
> attending because of their views.  

Yes, sure, that meeting was never intended to be a general inclusive
forum. Quite on the contrary, it was intended to be a meeting of people
who would be roughly in agreement. To my best knowledge, no claim to
the contrary has ever been made.

The relevant part of http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
says:

"""
There is nothing wrong with calling a meeting of broadly like-minded
people and/or organizations with an intention to develop a joint
declaration or to form a coalition. And there is nothing wrong when
such a meeting is kept invitation-only and restricted to people and
groups who are expected to be in broad agreement. In fact, a joint
declaration and a coalition are centrally based on agreeing about
something. By contrast, a forum is about bringing together a variety
of views and perspectives.

In the case of the meeting in Delhi of February 14-15, 2014, the
intention was to develop a joint declaration, and this intention
together with the intended political flavor of this declaration were
stated clearly as the subtitle of the "meeting note" that was sent to
all invitees. This subtitle was: "An international meeting to formulate
a progressive response to issues of global governance of the Internet."
The formation of a formal coalition was not planned, it is something
that emerged out of the dynamics of the meeting.
"""

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar  7 06:00:35 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:30:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54FADA53.3020802@itforchange.net>

Dear Shawna

Thanks for your response.

I will still stick to my lean and mean question - what are the proposed 
mechanisms for making global public policy 'decisions' in relation to 
the Internet?

Your response, as Michael says, is to describe an elaborate consultative 
or public participaiton process (however, let me know if it is meant as 
a decision taking one, and if so, how.). We all agree on such deep 
consultative/ participative processes, they have always been a part of 
the movement for participatory democracy . There are theories and 
theories on it, and so many documented practices. It is generally called 
public consultation and participation in  policy making.  How is 
multistakeholderism different from this robust and historically located 
processes of public consultation and participation. You know of the now 
almost proverbial Porto Alegro experiment. And well, closer home, 
thematically that is, we have the marco civil legislation in Brazil. Do 
you mean a macro civil kind of legislative process? If so, lets close an 
agreement on it, but transposing it to the global level.

What does multistakeholderism (MSism) add to this existing terminology 
and movement of participatory democracy - which as I said, and unlike 
MSism, has elaborate theories, methodologies, established and growing 
practices, and so on. No, it does not add anything but takes away a lot. 
( I dont want to digress, and I will mention some points on this 
separately, but quickly, participatory democracy is genuinely people 
centric, and MSism, as practices in the IG space, is corporate-centric. 
I am ready to discuss this point, and show why. )

Again, just quickly, IT for Change works on village assemblies, and then 
separately women's village assemblies, to influence the agenda of 
village self governance bodies. At the national level, we along with our 
civil society (CS) colleagues have been doing advocacy for developing 
statutory provisions for public participation in legislative processes 
(see an enclosed draft which was evolved). Some of the most senior CS 
drafters of this document are JNC members and decry the kind of MS 
processes we see in global IG ans corporate centric and consider them 
not conducive to democracy.

In defending it, one cant just put the label of MSism on hallowed 
principles and processes of participatory democracy which is an existing 
and a very different field. (At the last regional Asia Pacific IGF, I 
asked for a conference where we get MSists together with theorists and 
practitioners of participatory democracy, and we will know what is what. 
I still want such a global conference if possible. Any interest?)

And, so back to my lean and mean question - what are the proposed 
mechanisms for making global public policy 'decisions' in relation to 
the Internet?

All key serious actors in the global IG space must answer this question. 
I will describe why.

I gave two examples, a model law on net neutrality, and a high level 
normative document on 'role of data in the society' . Many such global 
policy documents are urgently needed in this formative stage of an 
Internet-mediated society. When we avoid answering the above question, 
or we say , we do not yet know, we are nilly wily putting our weight on 
the side of the status quo - as those most powerful - politically and 
economically - continue to build unassailable positions in the new 
social ecology. We are doing a distinctly political act. Would you deny 
this?

We cannot work on global policy docs if we do not get past the stage of 
what are the appropriate mechanisms of developing them. And there is 
where we are struck - exactly as per the designs of those who do not 
want policy 'interference' in their global ambitions.

So, again, as our first act of political conviction, we must answer this 
question. And I will request APC as well as all other key actors to put 
their clear views out on this issue. Since clear details and examples 
help, pl do give full details of the process, and do address the two 
examples I proposed, or other similar ones.

JNC has answered all questions that have been put to us, and publicly 
(let us know if any is left out, and we will). The above question we ask 
is a simple and basic political one, for anyone doing political work at 
the global IG stage. I cant see how anyone can avoid answering this 
question - which of course does not mean everyone will have the same 
recommendation for the appropriate mechanisms.

parminder

On Saturday 07 March 2015 01:05 AM, Shawna Finnegan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Michael, Parminder
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I will try to respond to the
> points that you have both raised, reminding you that I am speaking
> from personal opinion, and not as an APC representative.
>
> On 15-03-05 04:20 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in
>> discursive rather than declarative mode...
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan
>> [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM To: Michael
>> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at
>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>>
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a
>> global governance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?
>>
>>
>>
>> */[MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite
>> unclear as to which of the variety of stakeholder models is being
>> proposed at any particular time or in any particular context, which
>> of course is one of the major sources of hesitation that I have
>> with these kinds of proposals.  Before entering into a decision
>> making process and particularly one that will have real and
>> potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the
>> rules of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are
>> they accountable to and how, what overall structures of
>> accountability will be in place, what decision making
>> rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so on.
>> Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it
>> is rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into
>> the meme and then take one's chances with whatever turns up re:
>> what will actually occur in a specific decision making context.  My
>> own experiences in attempting to participate in MS processes as
>> evidenced in my blog give some indication at a micro-level of what
>> is involved./*
>>
> sf: That is an interesting analogy for multi-stakeholder processes. As
> a relative newcomer, my impression is that the rules of the 'game' are
> still being determined, based on some core principles. Given the
> complexity of IG history, actors and spaces, as well as the technical
> infrastructure and global politics, I am not at all surprised that
> these processes continue to change and evolve in different contexts.
>
> However you could certainly make the argument that CS should not
> engage in any process without clearly defined rules and structures of
> accountability, especially if there is a high risk of capture by
> private interests. I'd argue that private interests would continue to
> influence the rules to their benefit, but it would at least address
> some issues of accountability.
>
> This might be a good point to address Parminder's question to Anriette
> on Feb 27:
>
> "Say, for instance, it was found useful to write a global normative
> document on the 'role on data in the society', which would enable
> countries to begin understanding this new terrain in normative terms
> and can help the necessary legislative and regulatory work. (There are
> innumerable such important documents, like on health, education, etc
> written regularly at UN bodies.) In order to make it more concrete,
> let us say, UNESCO was asked to do it. Who do think should make and
> decide on the final document - governments, or governments and
> corporates on an equal footing?"
>
> Why do you exclude civil society from the decision? My personal
> perspective would be for the final document to be agreed upon by as
> representative a group of stakeholders as possible. The role of data
> in society will be understood differently by individuals within the
> technical community, end users, academics, corporations and government
> representatives, all relative to where they are in the world and what
> their experiences have been. If the document is to have any real
> significance, those affected by it must feel they have some ownership
> over it, that their perspective of the role of data in society has
> been somehow taken into consideration.
>
> How could we go about this in practice? Intensive outreach. Start with
> local discussion groups of different stakeholders, ideally open to
> anyone interested. These groups could sugget key text, red lines,
> whatever they think is important to consider for the document. A few
> representatives (chosen by whatever method the group decides is fair)
> could then take those views to national and regional discussion groups
> of diverse stakeholders. From there another group of regional
> representatives would be chosen to engage in drafting the document.
> The text would be available online, and representatives at this global
> drafting would be responsible for going back to their regional groups,
> which would in turn communicate with national and local groups.
>
> It is a complex, expensive and time-consuming proposal, but I think it
> would be much more effective than a purely state based process.
>
>> */ /*
>>
>> */Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to
>> know how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and
>> not just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will.  My
>> observation is that MS processes do not work very well at all when
>> there is conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of
>> the approach is one where participants are involved specifically
>> because they come from different contexts with presumably different
>> interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various
>> kinds.  My observation is that when a MS process is subject to
>> conflict or stress it immediately reverts to a defensive and
>> control mode where privileged insiders close ranks, extrude the
>> conflict (and its individual sources) and proceed as though nothing
>> had occurred – in this way they are achieving consensus (which is
>> of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects nothing more
>> than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and
>> satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond
>> to divergent positions and interests./*
> sf: Could you provide an example of an MS process subject to conflict
> or stress that immediately reverted to defensive and controlled mode?
> Was your interpretation that the CS involved were privileged insiders,
> with their own interests?
>> */ /*
>>
>> */Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite
>> capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups
>> since these groups have in most cases no obvious internal
>> structures for ensuring appropriate levels of effective
>> accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic
>> elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage"
>> these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able
>> to do in the absence of some form of external (state based)
>> structures of enforcing accountability, transparency etc.  In the
>> sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which
>> ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of
>> value.  Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil
>> society (or government such as those found in many LDC’s for that
>> matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and
>> will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour
>> of elite and dominant interests./*
>>
> sf: I think here we again differ in our expectations of state based
> structures of enforcing accountability. Government institutions may
> have rules and structures to hold themselves accountable to the
> people, but in practice they are incredibly vulnerable to those same
> resources that you believe are irresistible to some civil society and
> governments in MS processes. The risk of elite interests capturing
> decision-making processes is high no matter what you do. Structures of
> accountability only work if there is sustained engagement from people
> outside the process, particularly civil society and media.
>
> In this regard I think that some of the questions arising in this
> UNESCO thread are extremely valuable to the ongoing accountability of
> CS engaged in multi-stakeholder processes. Some questions, on the
> other hand, are framed purely as accusations, and in my opinion are
> intended to divide civil society.
>>
>> */ /*
>>
>> I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US
>> government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing
>> global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying
>> societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a
>> paradigm.
>>
>>
>>
>> */[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to
>> redouble efforts to make democratic governance more effective and
>> responsive rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that
>> something (anything) might be better… /*
> sf: Who is suggesting that we toss democratic governance?
>>
>>
>> */ /*
>>
>> Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of
>> democratic pluralism.
>>
>>
>>
>> */[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the
>> “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain./*
> sf: I think the proposal that I suggested above for drafting a
> document on the role of data in society is a good example of
> democratic decision-making, with multiple layers of representation and
> accountability.
>> */ /*
>>
>> */ /*
>>
>> Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the
>> same way as democratic processes.
>>
>>
>>
>> */[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at
>> least the possibility of rectification.  With legitimized control
>> by powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I
>> can see at rectification.  Those interests are in fact legally
>> obliged (under current law) to maximize their individual interests
>> whatever the collective good.
> sf: They maximize profit, so our recourse is to put their profit at
> risk. It is not easy, particularly when choices are limited, but civil
> society has had past success in pressuring companies to change their
> behaviour for the benefit of the collective good.
>
> I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter
>> campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I
>> influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a
>> phone number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision
>> that they have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and
>> more effective means for achieving democratic accountability and
>> better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic
>> decision making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have
>> been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and
>> struggle for an undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be
>> a very good social trade off to be making./*
>>
> sf: I still do not understand why you believe that engaging in
> multi-stakeholder processes is effectively tossing out the gains made
> in democratic decision-making.
>>
>> Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am
>> surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional
>> civil society grouping to shun an organization that did not
>> actively endorse democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a
>> fundamental principle. Democracy is a system of government. In
>> practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate us and
>> legitimize powerful interests.
>>
>> */ /*
>>
>> */[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics
>> and structures of democratic governance from the norms and
>> principles of democracy.
> sf: Yes, it is necessary to separate in some way. but also to consider
> whether and how the norms and principles of democracy have been
> implemented in practice. If our existing structures have been wholly
> insufficient to achieve the principles of democracy, then we must
> seriously reconsider those structures.
>
> Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may
>> have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean
>> that the aspiration of the people towards self-governance,
>> empowerment, and social justice is not an appropriate aspiration
>> which is to be lightly and cavalierly rejected in favour of
>> governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving)
>> elites./*
>>
> sf: Why must we abandon aspirations towards self-governance,
> empowerment and social justice in order to engage in multi-stakeholder
> processes?
>>
>> I very much agree that decisions made by civil society
>> organizations now, even if through non-action, will have
>> significant consequences long-term. And I agree that sometimes
>> civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Perhaps we should
>> have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
>>
>> */ /*
>>
>> */[MG] yes../*
> sf: I think this returns us to the point raised by Parminder on why CS
> at the UNESCO meeting did not put their foot down against those who
> said 'democracy has baggage' (in this context). If the individuals
> present in the negotiations were representing our wider civil society,
> and the consensus of our wider civil society is that democracy must be
> included in all documents relating to internet governance, then
> perhaps they should have walked out of the negotiations. However, I
> don't think that there is necessarily consensus that democracy must be
> included in all documents relating to internet governance,
> particularly when the link is being made to a multilateral framing.
>> */ /*
>>
>> */BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder
>> governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably)
>> other areas of governance.  Is this the official position of
>> APC?/*
> sf: You heard incorrectly. I am simply trying to understand how you
> view MS processes to be in direct conflict with democracy, and am
> poking a few holes in the perspective that governments are the ideal
> gatekeepers of internet policy.
>
> As for APC's official position, I believe that I addressed that
> question with the excerpt I sent from the WGEC submission.
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts,
>
> Shawna
>> */ /*
>>
>> */M/*
>>
>>
>>
>> Shawna
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
>>
>>
>>> Just a couple of things...
>>
>>
>>> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its
>>> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have
>>> been
>>> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a
>>> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge,
>>> to
>>> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in
>>> the
>>> context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion
>>> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial
>>> of
>>> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
>>
>>
>>> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear
>>> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of
>>> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a
>>> clear
>>> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who
>>> signed on
>>> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there
>>> is a
>>> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those
>>> who
>>> signed on to this agreement.
>>
>>
>>> And please be aware that this is not trivial...
>>
>>
>>> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that
>>> they see
>>> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the
>>> wide
>>> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in
>>> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of
>>> "democracy"
>>> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration
>>> of
>>> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global
>>> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
>>
>>
>>> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of
>>> governance
>>> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means
>>> that the
>>> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most
>>> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not
>>> completely
>>> ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%.
>>> Again is
>>> this APC's preferred position?
>>
>>
>>> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through
>>> non-action
>>> rather than action will contribute to very significant
>>> consequences in
>>> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and
>>> others
>>> who are so blithely jumping on the MS
>>> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of
>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of
>>> their
>>> own normative structures...?
>>
>>
>>> Best,
>>
>>
>>> M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan
>>> [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael
>>> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
>>
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at
>>
>>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>>> Dear Michael,
>>
>>
>>> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the
>>> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to
>>> your
>>> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour
>>> notions of
>>> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
>>
>>
>>> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has
>>> been
>>> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various
>>> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether
>>> it
>>> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we
>>> support
>>> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and
>>> actively
>>> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights
>>> Council.
>>
>>
>>> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing
>>> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced
>>> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder
>>> participation
>>> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
>>> governance:
>>
>>
>>> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is
>>> a
>>> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet
>>> governance
>>> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the
>>> Geneva
>>> Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and
>>> prosperous world.”
>>
>>
>>> (from our submission:
>>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf
>>>   )
>>
>>
>>> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
>>> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC
>>> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect
>>> change.
>>
>>
>>> Shawna
>>
>>
>>> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off
>>>> on by
>>>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference
>>>> to
>>>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology
>>>> of
>>>> "multistakeholderism
>> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of
>> social
>>
>>>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack
>>>> of
>>>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite
>>>> "demeaning"
>>>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
>>>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of
>>>> the
>>>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and
>>>> equally
>>>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the
>>>> Civil
>>>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus
>>>> provide
>>>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document
>>>> should I
>>>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent
>>>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being
>>>> evolved") in this sphere.
>>>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of
>>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of
>>>> its own
>>>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
>>>> M
>>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>
>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of
>>>> Anriette
>>>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>
>>>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>>>> "Connecting
>>>> the Dots Conference"
>>>> Dear all
>>>> Just an explanation and some context.
>>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role
>>>> was to
>>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair
>>>> and
>>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority
>>>> of
>>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and
>>>> onsite.
>>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC
>>>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
>>>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which
>>>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final
>>>> draft).
>>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for
>>>> any
>>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the
>>>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked
>>>> directly to the Study.
>>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and
>>>> to
>>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final
>>>> study
>>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome
>>>> of the
>>>> discussion.
>>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never
>>>> really
>>>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic
>>>> to
>>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the
>>>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks
>>>> for
>>>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the
>>>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a
>>>> very
>>>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so
>>>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is
>>>> directly
>>>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs.
>>>> This
>>>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can
>>>> be
>>>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of
>>>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
>>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having
>>>> 'democratic'
>>>> in front of multistakeholder.
>>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code
>>>> for
>>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among
>>>> governments') into
>>>> the text.
>>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic
>>>> multistakeholder',
>>>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that
>>>> they
>>>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and
>>>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple
>>>> spaces.
>>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we
>>>> could
>>>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a
>>>> reference
>>>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could
>>>> not
>>>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him
>>>> that
>>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this
>>>> seriously, but
>>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater
>>>> than the
>>>> number of requests for putting it in.
>>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are
>>>> negotiated
>>>> in this way.
>>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption
>>>> as
>>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of
>>>> expression in
>>>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence
>>>> of the
>>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that
>>>> anonymity is illegitimate.
>>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in
>>>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate
>>>> the
>>>> gains vs. the losses.
>>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
>>>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence
>>>> in the
>>>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on
>>>> its
>>>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more
>>>> people
>>>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to
>>>> learn,
>>>> participate and influence internet-related debates with
>>>> policy-makers.
>>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really
>>>> know
>>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive
>>>> and they
>>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
>>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to
>>>> be
>>>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>>>> Anriette
>>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org
>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>>
>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein
>>>>>> <gurstein at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and
>>>>>>> others on the
>>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and
>>>>>>> "social and
>>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document
>>>>>>> meant to
>>>>>>> have global significance?
>>>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
>>>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to
>>>>>>   -
>> t
>>
>>>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims
>>>>> is
>>>>> JNC's
>>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual
>>>>> position
>>>>> of
>>>>> JNC.
>>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must
>>>>> be
>>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a
>>>>> human
>>>>> right,
>>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently
>>>>> implemented
>>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be
>>>>> democratic.
>>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states
>>>>> this as
>>>>> follows:
>>>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard
>>>>> to
>>>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of
>>>>> the
>>>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which
>>>>> multistakeholderism is
>>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global
>>>>> governance
>>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our
>>>>> foundational
>>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet
>>>>> which are
>>>>> democratic *and* participative.
>>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy
>>>>> claims is
>>>>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of
>>>>> government-led
>>>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>>>>> participative.
>>>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an
>>>>> earlier
>>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed
>>>>> ... the
>>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be
>>>>> quite
>>>>> full
>>>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my
>>>>> response
>>>>> (which
>>>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>>>> http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> Translate this email:
>>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You
>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To
>> unsubscribe or change your settings,
>>
>>>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+gGPAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKT/kL/1AVB2elHc3cWbgrNtyqLlyF
> 6A5/Pp+1wXupLU90KOqrXtnfizQeTUlocazv/2ywf5KyjAHeFpk0Z8kzf0Ik2iwh
> maZ83sm9bh9hlJ74ZFCmHh9nuvUOnmT4u+dBxSQHhx9T3UKiHM8pAOtQJFNoG7dH
> KlhyeszzYoeyCm+9/h7nBjVRmcpkkts+hUM/fFXLSRRMgLIVbWS2/Wj01pgZehbI
> puWiPfO4ucSFusN/Ny38KRWS0zdQCCW0QczeTRJE4EHRjpKV06Jpgao99nX2mkVH
> WWQUdWEoMpyLfPEpzjAqZRIMTKjg+zbyyaXgBPe+AACd7K6kgx69dlIvcsTCDkk8
> YslRB5yZmo4WO05mXXWMOtZ+h5/iVpNJWZCzBgGB0/vVldMm593/qZOqgixpweks
> FUxHvzpon0aqEUm2PCAV1Rr8TjOOmUHpwQvSgLWCVr8Ro32pxmVnuKU+XH8k3nc0
> DxY7+D2Da+uBkax/NSXSW5vN+Ri/JY7Ghum5+03eKw==
> =MVDF
> -----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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/9aea31c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft 9 Pre-Legislative Paper.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 39287 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/9aea31c4/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nhklein at gmx.net  Sat Mar  7 06:45:23 2015
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 18:45:23 +0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>


On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
wrote:
> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. 
> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
> deepen their understanding.
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>

Dear Mr. Benedek,

thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
partly included."

I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
partially, included.

Thanks in advance,

Norbert Klein
Cambodia


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  7 06:45:37 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:45:37 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <00f501d058cc$3b2fdeb0$b18f9c10$@gmail.com>

Re: the slighting reference below by Benedek to “two concepts important to
some” referring specifically to the suppression of the concept of
“democracy” by the representative of EFF, of the USG and with the tacit
approval of the APC representative (among others) as documented by Richard
Hill

 <http://refspace.com/quotes/Nelson_Mandela/Q1560> The victory of democracy
in South Africa is the common achievement of all humanity.

Nelson Mandela <http://refspace.com/quotes/Nelson_Mandela>  Long Walk to
Freedom

You may succeed in delaying, but never in preventing the transition of South
Africa to a democracy.

 <http://refspace.com/quotes/Nelson_Mandela> Nelson Mandela Long Walk to
Freedom

 <http://refspace.com/quotes/Nelson_Mandela/Q1547> Democracy is based on the
majority principle. This is especially true in a country such as ours where
the vast majority have been systematically denied their rights.


Nelson Mandela <http://refspace.com/quotes/Nelson_Mandela>   

 

Democracy and respect for human rights have long been central components of
U.S. foreign policy. Supporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental
American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps
create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the
United States can advance its national interests. In addition, democracy is
the one national interest that helps to secure all the others.
Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter
aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect
American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human
and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the
global environment, and protect human health.

US State Department <http://www.state.gov/j/drl/democ/> 

 

 

Somehow I don’t think that Mr. Mandela (or for that matter the US Government
in certain of its modes) would accept that “democracy” is a concept
suppressable at will for whatever reason or in whatever circumstance.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek,
Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
Sent: March 6, 2015 11:31 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well);
&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the dots:
Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to put the
record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to give feedback to
the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the future priorities in this
field. This was done in several plenary and 16 breakout sessions in a
MSH-approach quite successfully. 

The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated on
during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to deepen
their understanding.

 

Wolfgang Benedek

 

 

 

Von: "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com <mailto:pouzin at well.com> >
Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> " <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >, "Louis Pouzin (well)"
<pouzin at well.com <mailto:pouzin at well.com> >
Datum: Samstag, 07. März 2015 06:09
An: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >,
"governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> "
<governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

This Connecting the Dots conference was more of a Dotting the I's, to make
sure the message was clear

The outcome document was endorsed by applause, à la Net Mundial, without
signatories.

By diktat, "democracy" is now incompatible with multi-stakeholder.

This confirms that "multi-stakeholder" is window-dressing, since it clearly
means multi-stakeholdup of UN by the USG.
  .
Cheers. Louis.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/c7b78ab8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Sat Mar  7 07:20:13 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 13:20:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <7DBDC08A-873D-4D90-ACDC-F15A7F53EA63@consensus.pro>

Norbert's point in his last sentence is a great one. Given the text remains open for comment, an answer to that question would be really helpful to enable those preparing submissions to know what the fault lines are with the concepts that didn't make the cut.

On 7 Mar 2015, at 12:45, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:

> 
> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> wrote:
>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. 
>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>> deepen their understanding.
>> 
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>> 
> 
> Dear Mr. Benedek,
> 
> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
> partly included."
> 
> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
> partially, included.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Norbert Klein
> Cambodia
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/dc7243c5/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar  7 08:01:43 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:01:43 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>

And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"


On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
wrote:
> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to 
> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to 
> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the 
> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. 
> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the 
> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in 
> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly 
> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated 
> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to 
> deepen their understanding.
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>

Dear Mr. Benedek,

thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly included."

I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only partially, included.

Thanks in advance,

Norbert Klein
Cambodia




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  7 08:35:55 2015
From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 14:35:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO
 Connecting the Dots Conference
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11Zss8r8ACAcqLAjLsgnW98djemxenrD7d3f6vhkjEd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d0-BJwZhvmAUcVrP8xmDuQ6UKcCsPQb8JW6oUxcifiTfxw@mail.gmail.com>

Great statement Nnenna! Keeping both eyes open will be good for security
purposes.

Peter
On Mar 4, 2015 5:57 PM, "Nnenna Nwakanma" <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action
>
> UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
> Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma
>
> Africa Regional Coordinator
>
> The World Wide Web Foundation.
>
> March 4, 2015
>
>
>
> Deputy Director General
> Friends and colleagues
> Onsite and online
>
>
>
>
>
> My name is Nnenna.  I  come from the Internet. And I have been asked to
> say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I
> coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent,
> Africa. The Web Foundation is  that organization that believes that the
> Internet is for everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all,
> we work on opening up data for participation and  we support  the global
> Web We Want Coalition.
>
>
>
> I have three things to say.  The first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The
> second is on one of the issues raised.  The third is  on where we go from
> here.
>
> From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESCO’s consultation
> towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as
> inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization,
> trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M
> principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder
> participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are
> key in implementing its recommendations.  So  it is only natural that we
> engage as civil society, during, now and going forward.
>
>
> Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too
> large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.
>
>
>
> On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the
> Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability
> Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the
> Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average
> 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
>
>
> And we are working  towards access for everyone.
>
>
>
> To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance
> and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global
> benefit and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet
> Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.
>
> -        - In working for  access to knowledge and information,
>
> -        - in working  for freedom of expression
>
> -        - in working for privacy
>
> -        - in working for ethics
>
> We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are
> connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to
> knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting
> the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable
> future.
>
>
> We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.
>
> The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius
>
> It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human values
>
> And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization
>
> These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here,
> we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage
>
>
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday.
> And my sister told me to make a wish.   I asked if I should keep my eyes
> open or closed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep
> one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..
>
>
> *That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global
> public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that
> everyone can access it can use it  freely.*
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/490e62a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar  7 08:44:46 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 19:14:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] JNC's objection statement to UNESCO conference doc
Message-ID: <54FB00CE.1040007@itforchange.net>

The enclosed statement was read by Richard Hill on Just Net Coalition's 
behalf in the last sessions when our simple and fully legitimate demands 
of including 'democracy/ democratic' and 'social/ economic right' were 
not agreed to even when we were ready to be as reasonable as possible. 
Also at 
http://www.justnetcoalition.org/JNC_response_UNESCO_connecting-the-dots.

We have sent this statement to UNESCO and asked them to enclose it or 
refer it in outcome document.

A chronicle of events that lead us to refusing to be a part of the 
consensus is also enclosed.

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/9f5b05b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UNESCO JNC statement-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 129308 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/9f5b05b7/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: A chronicle of events.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 76435 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/9f5b05b7/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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.benedek at uni-graz.at  Sat Mar  7 09:02:22 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:02:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view
still needs to be developed.

Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by
the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational
sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve
ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned
without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made
by others were not taken up at all.

Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I
have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the
examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It
would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of
democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia
first before forcing it into international documents.

Wolfgang Benedek




Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:

>And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather
>that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>
>M
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
>Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>
>On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>wrote:
>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>> deepen their understanding.
>>
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>
>Dear Mr. Benedek,
>
>thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities
>like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>included."
>
>I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>partially, included.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Norbert Klein
>Cambodia
>
>
>
>


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  7 09:25:32 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:25:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] [internet policy] Beijing Strikes Back in US-China
 Tech Wars
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYrMbPpMspjZwmwyE-QMhwBq_DLx5hxiEeGwU4jD+Xyw9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Foreign tech firms will either have to comply with intrusive surveillance
requirements or risk being substituted by Chinese alternatives.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/beijing-strikes-back-in-us-china-tech-wars/

(Louis)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/de8053eb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar  7 09:42:46 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:12:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <54FB0E66.4010309@itforchange.net>



On Saturday 07 March 2015 07:32 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang 
(wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote:
> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view
> still needs to be developed.
>
> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by
> the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational
> sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve
> ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned
> without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made
> by others were not taken up at all.
>
> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I
> have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
> concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the
> examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic
> Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It
> would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of
> democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia
> first before forcing it into international documents.

What about doing the same about the 'multistakeholder thing, which did 
go into the doc? Are you are saying that democracy is on more unsure 
grounds than MSism to go into international documents? If so, on what 
basis? You know that the whole thing would have been made to grind to a 
halt if the multistkeholder word was removed from the doc, or not 
included in the first place. The question is: why is democracy subject 
to such interrogation, and not the MS concept? Why are there so many 
defenders of MSism and none for democracy?

Again, sorry to hear use of words like 'forcing into international 
documents' about democracy. You of course you say so in particular 
respect of Internet - but as a Professor of and expert in human rights, 
do you think that democracy may or may not be as applicable in relation 
to Internet, as it is about other issues, like trade, health, education, 
climate change, etc.

This plot keeps thickening... Good to have a through continued 
education.... parminder
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>
>
>
> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:
>
>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather
>> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> wrote:
>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>
>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities
>> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>> included."
>>
>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>> partially, included.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Norbert Klein
>> Cambodia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/279c946b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Mar  7 09:45:48 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:15:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FB0E66.4010309@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
 <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
 <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
 <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
 <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FB0E66.4010309@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <14bf4b2ea08.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

He did qualify his words with the obvious fact that democracy is a much 
misused term in a lot of contexts and for a lot of people.

You may want to specify in your suggested wording what specific form of 
democracy you support.



On March 7, 2015 8:13:15 PM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> On Saturday 07 March 2015 07:32 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote:
> > First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
> > governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
> > alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view
> > still needs to be developed.
> >
> > Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
> > certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by
> > the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational
> > sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve
> > ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned
> > without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made
> > by others were not taken up at all.
> >
> > Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I
> > have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
> > concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the
> > examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic
> > Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It
> > would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of
> > democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia
> > first before forcing it into international documents.
>
> What about doing the same about the 'multistakeholder thing, which did
> go into the doc? Are you are saying that democracy is on more unsure
> grounds than MSism to go into international documents? If so, on what
> basis? You know that the whole thing would have been made to grind to a
> halt if the multistkeholder word was removed from the doc, or not
> included in the first place. The question is: why is democracy subject
> to such interrogation, and not the MS concept? Why are there so many
> defenders of MSism and none for democracy?
>
> Again, sorry to hear use of words like 'forcing into international
> documents' about democracy. You of course you say so in particular
> respect of Internet - but as a Professor of and expert in human rights,
> do you think that democracy may or may not be as applicable in relation
> to Internet, as it is about other issues, like trade, health, education,
> climate change, etc.
>
> This plot keeps thickening... Good to have a through continued
> education.... parminder
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:
> >
> >> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
> >> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather
> >> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
> >> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
> >>
> >> M
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
> >> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
> >> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> >> wrote:
> >>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
> >>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
> >>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
> >>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
> >>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
> >>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
> >>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
> >>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
> >>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
> >>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
> >>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
> >>> deepen their understanding.
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang Benedek
> >>>
> >> Dear Mr. Benedek,
> >>
> >> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities
> >> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
> >> included."
> >>
> >> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
> >> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
> >> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
> >> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
> >> partially, included.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Norbert Klein
> >> Cambodia
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >       http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/8001dd86/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Mar  7 09:46:04 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:16:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FB0E66.4010309@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FB0E66.4010309@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54FB0F2C.7020502@itforchange.net>



On Saturday 07 March 2015 08:12 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday 07 March 2015 07:32 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang 
> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote:
>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view
>> still needs to be developed.
>>
>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by
>> the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational
>> sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve
>> ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned
>> without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made
>> by others were not taken up at all.
>>
>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I
>> have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
>> concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the
>> examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic
>> Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It
>> would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of
>> democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia
>> first before forcing it into international documents.
>
> What about doing the same about the 'multistakeholder thing, which did 
> go into the doc? Are you are saying that democracy is on more unsure 
> grounds than MSism to go into international documents? If so, on what 
> basis? You know that the whole thing would have been made to grind to 
> a halt if the multistkeholder word was removed from the doc, or not 
> included in the first place. The question is: why is democracy subject 
> to such interrogation, and not the MS concept? Why are there so many 
> defenders of MSism and none for democracy?
>
> Again, sorry to hear use of words like 'forcing into international 
> documents' about democracy. You of course you say so in particular 
> respect of Internet - but as a Professor of and expert in human 
> rights, do you think that democracy may or may not be as applicable in 
> relation to Internet, as it is about other issues, like trade, health, 
> education, climate change, etc.
>
> This plot keeps thickening... Good to have a through continued education\

I meant, thorough continued discussion  ...


> .... parminder
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter<gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather
>>> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> wrote:
>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>
>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities
>>> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>> included."
>>>
>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>>> partially, included.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>> Norbert Klein
>>> Cambodia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/a224f0aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Mar  7 10:11:00 2015
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:11:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>

+1

Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language 
games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much 
waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different 
things.

Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get 
lost by (mis-)using it strategically.

Jeanette


(...)

  I
> have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
> concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the
> examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic
> Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It
> would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of
> democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia
> first before forcing it into international documents.
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>
>
>
> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:
>
>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather
>> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> wrote:
>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>
>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities
>> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>> included."
>>
>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>> partially, included.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Norbert Klein
>> Cambodia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sat Mar  7 10:39:50 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 16:39:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <74735C04-3251-43A7-BC2B-95CDE58B9BB8@theglobaljournal.net>

-1 on your comment Jeanette


"Words" are part of what makes the ground for getting the people together whether by raw consensus, flawed consensus, twisted consensus, even by democratic consent (Oh my Godness what did I write here?

UNESCO goes into banishing the word "democratic" thanks to US disgusting maneuvers, money, and their little doggies.

Democracy is a much more solid ground, when it comes to "governance" including in the field of public digital policies, much more than MSXXXism which is basically the best friend of vested US interests, and simply the opposite of democratic principles. We all know that.

Refusing to acknowledge that the US government fights any bit of ground to refuse a change in its status-quo domination of Internet is a shame. More of a shame is that people that declare themselves defender of human rights, still prefer to put democracy aside because it might be misused according to their knowledge. Using such empty arguments, like all of what we have seen so far, is simply not acceptable. 

MSXXXism is not just constantly misused. It is undefined, though it is a mean of protection of the current asymmetry.

This UNESCO meeting is a milestone for any true civil society activist, as the betrayal of everything we are supposed to fight for.

Your reaction, and the attitude of people like Jeremy during the UNESCO meeting are just a shame. In front of history, you'll have to justify it with much stronger arguments.

In the meantime, we see a lot of misgivings from the US regarding surveillance, TLDs... The US show goes on with a great complicity of some so-called CS.

JC


Le 7 mars 2015 à 16:11, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> +1
> 
> Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things.
> 
> Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get lost by (mis-)using it strategically.
> 
> Jeanette
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> I
>> have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
>> concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the
>> examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic
>> Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It
>> would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of
>> democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia
>> first before forcing it into international documents.
>> 
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather
>>> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> wrote:
>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>> 
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>> 
>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities
>>> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>> included."
>>> 
>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>>> partially, included.
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> 
>>> Norbert Klein
>>> Cambodia
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/03e83a40/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Sat Mar  7 10:40:32 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:40:32 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578D35@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Can it really mean so many different things?

Which meanings are you using at your research centre?

http://www.wzb.eu/en/search/apachesolr_search/democracy


Please also describe the normative substance of the term democracy (or provide a link).

Then let's make sure it is not lost!

//Erik


-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: 07 March 2015 16:11
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

+1

Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language 
games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much 
waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different 
things.

Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get 
lost by (mis-)using it strategically.

Jeanette


(...)

  I
> have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
> concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the
> examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic
> Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It
> would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of
> democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia
> first before forcing it into international documents.
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>
>
>
> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:
>
>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather
>> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> wrote:
>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>
>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities
>> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>> included."
>>
>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>> partially, included.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Norbert Klein
>> Cambodia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Sat Mar  7 11:31:27 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 08:31:27 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <02a001d058f4$29cbc8f0$7d635ad0$@gmail.com>

Anyone who thinks this is simply about word games has not been present in Internet Governance discussions over the last ten years where there has been a very concerted intention to ensure that deliberately ill-defined but elite based multistakeholder decision processes become the required mode in the Internet policy area.

What is interesting in this instance is that for once the process and its overall objective has been made clear i.e. to suppress democracy in favour of MSism. An additional matter of interest that has become visible is the range of unholy alliances that have been struck between those self-serving governmental and corporate forces promoting MSism and various elements of so-called "civil society".

As an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes might actually operate in practice one need only reflect on the processes of decision making that went into this purportedly multistakeholder Output Document -- the highly questionable and completely non-transparent selection of the editorial committee (from a small circle of the Internet Governance elite), where potentially critical but equally qualified participants were excluded, where dissenting voices and positions were suppressed, with a complete lack of accountability to presumed constituencies or "stakeholder" groups,  and where the outcome was presented completely falsely as a "consensus" document and output of the associated meeting.

Shame on UNESCO and all those involved for hosting and countenancing such a farce.

And be very very afraid when these kinds of multistakeholder processes become the required norm in a much broader range of global Internet (and other) decision processes as is the clear intention of those controlling and directing these efforts. 

M
	
-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: March 7, 2015 7:11 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

+1

Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things.

Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get lost by (mis-)using it strategically.

Jeanette


(...)

  I
> have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that 
> the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take 
> the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the 
> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic 
> of Korea. It would be good to work for a consensus on the 
> understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet 
> among civil society and academia first before forcing it into international documents.
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>
>
>
> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:
>
>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a 
>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but 
>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote 
>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert 
>> Klein
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang 
>> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> wrote:
>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to 
>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to 
>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the 
>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary 
>>> and
>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into 
>>> the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work 
>>> in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only 
>>> partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts were 
>>> elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any significant way 
>>> in order to deepen their understanding.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>
>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only 
>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only 
>> partly included."
>>
>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar 
>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would 
>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, 
>> could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or 
>> only partially, included.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Norbert Klein
>> Cambodia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Sat Mar  7 11:44:16 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 22:14:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <02a001d058f4$29cbc8f0$7d635ad0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
 <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
 <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
 <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
 <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>
 <02a001d058f4$29cbc8f0$7d635ad0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14bf51f6778.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Oh that's not elite based at all. It simply ensures that only people 
prepared to actually work at something rather than score petty political 
points get to have a say in the process


On March 7, 2015 10:01:54 PM "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anyone who thinks this is simply about word games has not been present in 
> Internet Governance discussions over the last ten years where there has 
> been a very concerted intention to ensure that deliberately ill-defined but 
> elite based multistakeholder decision processes become the required mode in 
> the Internet policy area.
>
> What is interesting in this instance is that for once the process and its 
> overall objective has been made clear i.e. to suppress democracy in favour 
> of MSism. An additional matter of interest that has become visible is the 
> range of unholy alliances that have been struck between those self-serving 
> governmental and corporate forces promoting MSism and various elements of 
> so-called "civil society".
>
> As an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes might 
> actually operate in practice one need only reflect on the processes of 
> decision making that went into this purportedly multistakeholder Output 
> Document -- the highly questionable and completely non-transparent 
> selection of the editorial committee (from a small circle of the Internet 
> Governance elite), where potentially critical but equally qualified 
> participants were excluded, where dissenting voices and positions were 
> suppressed, with a complete lack of accountability to presumed 
> constituencies or "stakeholder" groups,  and where the outcome was 
> presented completely falsely as a "consensus" document and output of the 
> associated meeting.
>
> Shame on UNESCO and all those involved for hosting and countenancing such a 
> farce.
>
> And be very very afraid when these kinds of multistakeholder processes 
> become the required norm in a much broader range of global Internet (and 
> other) decision processes as is the clear intention of those controlling 
> and directing these efforts.
>
> M
> 	
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: March 7, 2015 7:11 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of 
> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
> +1
>
> Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language 
> games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much waste 
> of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things.
>
> Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get lost 
> by (mis-)using it strategically.
>
> Jeanette
>
>
> (...)
>
>   I
> > have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that
> > the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take
> > the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the
> > Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic
> > of Korea. It would be good to work for a consensus on the
> > understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet
> > among civil society and academia first before forcing it into 
> international documents.
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:
> >
> >> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
> >> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but
> >> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
> >> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
> >>
> >> M
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
> >> Klein
> >> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
> >> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
> >> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> >> wrote:
> >>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
> >>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
> >>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
> >>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
> >>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary
> >>> and
> >>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
> >>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into
> >>> the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work
> >>> in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
> >>> partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts were
> >>> elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any significant way
> >>> in order to deepen their understanding.
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang Benedek
> >>>
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Benedek,
> >>
> >> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
> >> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
> >> partly included."
> >>
> >> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
> >> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
> >> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference,
> >> could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
> >> only partially, included.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Norbert Klein
> >> Cambodia
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To 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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar  7 12:01:10 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:01:10 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>

I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on
how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
advocating for a long time.

 

Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient
comfort to "force" it into international documents.

 

The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
either in theory or in practice.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
[mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] 
Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
needs to be developed.

 

Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
not taken up at all.

 

Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
international documents.

 

Wolfgang Benedek

 

 

 

 

Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:

 

>And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a 

>matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but 

>rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote 

>"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".

> 

>M

> 

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

>From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org

>[ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert 

>Klein

>Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM

>To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony 

>of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> 

>On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang 

>( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)

>wrote:

>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the

>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to 

>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to 

>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the 

>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and

>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.

>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the 

>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in 

>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly 

>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated 

>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to 

>> deepen their understanding.

>> 

>> Wolfgang Benedek

>> 

> 

>Dear Mr. Benedek,

> 

>thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only 

>formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only 

>partly included."

> 

>I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar 

>importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would 

>appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could 

>share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only 

>partially, included.

> 

>Thanks in advance,

> 

>Norbert Klein

>Cambodia

> 

> 

> 

> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/cf786379/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Sat Mar  7 12:12:56 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 18:12:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FB0E66.4010309@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FB0E66.4010309@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D120ECED.726B1%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Again, I have no problem with a reference to democracy, which also appears in the first principle out of ten identified by the Council of Europe in ist Declaration of 2011. But as it comes out quite clearly from some statements on this thread, the concept of democracy should obviously be used to challenge the MSH-concept without giving any clear indication how, which I guess is the main reason for the opposition. Again I would also welcome a more democratic internet governance, but I would like to know how that should look like in practice from those propagating it. Most processes on the multilateral level work on the basis of consensus, where You have to persuade others. This includes not only to denounce deficiencies, which is important, but also to explain the preferred alternatives. And it is part of democracy to accept to be in a minority and not to force one's views on others.

Wolfgang Benedek
Von: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Datum: Samstag, 07. März 2015 15:42
An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"



On Saturday 07 March 2015 07:32 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>) wrote:

First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view
still needs to be developed.

Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by
the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational
sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve
ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned
without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made
by others were not taken up at all.

Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I
have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the
examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It
would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of
democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia
first before forcing it into international documents.

What about doing the same about the 'multistakeholder thing, which did go into the doc? Are you are saying that democracy is on more unsure grounds than MSism to go into international documents? If so, on what basis? You know that the whole thing would have been made to grind to a halt if the multistkeholder word was removed from the doc, or not included in the first place. The question is: why is democracy subject to such interrogation, and not the MS concept? Why are there so many defenders of MSism and none for democracy?

Again, sorry to hear use of words like 'forcing into international documents' about democracy. You of course you say so in particular respect of Internet - but as a Professor of and expert in human rights, do you think that democracy may or may not be as applicable in relation to Internet, as it is about other issues, like trade, health, education, climate change, etc.

This plot keeps thickening... Good to have a through continued education.... parminder

Wolfgang Benedek




Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com><mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>:



And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather
that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
of "Connecting the Dots Conference"


On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
wrote:


As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
deepen their understanding.

Wolfgang Benedek



Dear Mr. Benedek,

thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities
like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
included."

I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
partially, included.

Thanks in advance,

Norbert Klein
Cambodia








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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150307/bf7867a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar  7 12:19:55 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:19:55 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <14bf51f6778.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> <02a001d058f4$29cbc8f0$7d635ad0$@gmail.com> <14bf51f6778.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <02fc01d058fa$eee46c40$ccad44c0$@gmail.com>

So, advocating for democracy and social justice is "scor(ing) petty
political points" and its advocates are by definition to be excluded from
multistakeholder consensus processes.

Yes, I can see why there is a clear desire to suppress all notions and
expressions of democracy as these would tend to slow down the massive drive
for control by those folks who are feverishly working to build the brave new
multistakeholder world of the future.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: March 7, 2015 8:44 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'best Bits'; Michael
Gurstein
Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

Oh that's not elite based at all. It simply ensures that only people
prepared to actually work at something rather than score petty political
points get to have a say in the process


On March 7, 2015 10:01:54 PM "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anyone who thinks this is simply about word games has not been present 
> in Internet Governance discussions over the last ten years where there 
> has been a very concerted intention to ensure that deliberately 
> ill-defined but elite based multistakeholder decision processes become 
> the required mode in the Internet policy area.
>
> What is interesting in this instance is that for once the process and 
> its overall objective has been made clear i.e. to suppress democracy 
> in favour of MSism. An additional matter of interest that has become 
> visible is the range of unholy alliances that have been struck between 
> those self-serving governmental and corporate forces promoting MSism 
> and various elements of so-called "civil society".
>
> As an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes 
> might actually operate in practice one need only reflect on the 
> processes of decision making that went into this purportedly 
> multistakeholder Output Document -- the highly questionable and 
> completely non-transparent selection of the editorial committee (from 
> a small circle of the Internet Governance elite), where potentially 
> critical but equally qualified participants were excluded, where 
> dissenting voices and positions were suppressed, with a complete lack 
> of accountability to presumed constituencies or "stakeholder" groups,  
> and where the outcome was presented completely falsely as a 
> "consensus" document and output of the associated meeting.
>
> Shame on UNESCO and all those involved for hosting and countenancing 
> such a farce.
>
> And be very very afraid when these kinds of multistakeholder processes 
> become the required norm in a much broader range of global Internet 
> (and
> other) decision processes as is the clear intention of those 
> controlling and directing these efforts.
>
> M
> 	
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette 
> Hofmann
> Sent: March 7, 2015 7:11 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
> +1
>
> Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language 
> games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much 
> waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different
things.
>
> Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get 
> lost by (mis-)using it strategically.
>
> Jeanette
>
>
> (...)
>
>   I
> > have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware 
> > that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in 
> > history, take the examples of the former German Democratic 
> > Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the 
> > Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for a 
> > consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context 
> > of the internet among civil society and academia first before 
> > forcing it into
> international documents.
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:
> >
> >> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply 
> >> a matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but 
> >> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to 
> >> promote "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
> >>
> >> M
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert 
> >> Klein
> >> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> >> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
> >> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> >> wrote:
> >>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting 
> >>> the
> >>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important 
> >>> to put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was 
> >>> to give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on 
> >>> the future priorities in this field. This was done in several 
> >>> plenary and
> >>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
> >>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into 
> >>> the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all 
> >>> work in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or 
> >>> only partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts 
> >>> were elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any 
> >>> significant way in order to deepen their understanding.
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang Benedek
> >>>
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Benedek,
> >>
> >> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only 
> >> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or 
> >> only partly included."
> >>
> >> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar 
> >> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would 
> >> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, 
> >> could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or 
> >> only partially, included.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Norbert Klein
> >> Cambodia
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >       http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>




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

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat Mar  7 12:37:22 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 18:37:22 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
References:  <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
 <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
 <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
 <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
 <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

This discussion is bizarr.

Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.

Wolfgang

BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. 




I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on
how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
advocating for a long time.

 

Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient
comfort to "force" it into international documents.

 

The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
either in theory or in practice.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
[mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] 
Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
needs to be developed.

 

Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
not taken up at all.

 

Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
international documents.

 

Wolfgang Benedek

 

 

 

 

Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:

 

>And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a 

>matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but 

>rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote 

>"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".

> 

>M

> 

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

>From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org

>[ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert 

>Klein

>Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM

>To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony 

>of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> 

>On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang 

>( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)

>wrote:

>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the

>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to 

>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to 

>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the 

>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and

>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.

>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the 

>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in 

>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly 

>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated 

>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to 

>> deepen their understanding.

>> 

>> Wolfgang Benedek

>> 

> 

>Dear Mr. Benedek,

> 

>thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only 

>formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only 

>partly included."

> 

>I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar 

>importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would 

>appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could 

>share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only 

>partially, included.

> 

>Thanks in advance,

> 

>Norbert Klein

>Cambodia

> 

> 

> 

> 

 



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Mar  7 13:08:04 2015
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shailam at yahoo.com)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:08:04 -0800
Subject: [governance] APC at the CSW
In-Reply-To: <54F97689.2050402@apc.org>
References: <A055CC50-1698-4E92-A9A3-BD3F38A47CAE@apcwomen.org> <54F97689.2050402@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BC7C458D-330C-4796-A413-528ACDA75C7B@yahoo.com>

Dear Anriette
I will be there please forward any events that APC is hosting .
Hopefully we will connect. Usually I speak so please find me. And anyone else who is from this group. 
Regards 
Shaila 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear all
> 
> For those of you following gender and ICT issues. Please pass on to
> colleagues who will be in New York for
> http://www.unwomen.org/en/csw/csw59-2015
> 
> Commission on the Status of Women - meeting at the UN in New York.
> 
> It is WSIS +10 this year but also Beijing +20.
> 
> For social media use:  #sectionJ
> More here: https://www.apc.org/en/node/20187/
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> ---------
> 
> APC.org at http://www.unwomen.org/en/csw/csw59-2015
> 
> 1) High Level Panel: 9 March
> Reprioritising Section J of the Beijing Platform for Action – Critical
> issues on the human rights of women and girls and the internet
> Permanent Mission of Estonia to the UN and Association for Progressive
> Communications, with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
> the Netherlands and National Women’s Institute of Costa Rica (INAMU)
> 
> Discussants:
> Lakshmi Puri, Deputy Executive Director of UN Women
> Marina Kaljurand, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Ministry of Foreign
> Affairs of Estonia
> Alejandra Mora, Minister at the Ministry for Women’s Affairs of Costa Rica
> Leah C. Tanodra-Armamento, Undersecretary of the Department of Justice
> in the Republic of the Philippines
> Alton Grizzle, Programme Specialist at UNESCO Freedom of Expression and
> Media Development Division / Global Alliance on Gender and Media
> Jan Moolman, Senior Coordinator at the Women’s Rights Programme of the
> Association for Progressive Communications
> 
> Moderator: Joanne Sandler, Gender at Work, and former Deputy Executive
> Director of UNIFEM
> 
> 2) High level panel, 9 March
> 'Countering cyber violence against women'
> Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
> 
> Discussants:
> Helen Rubenstein, Program Director at Global Rights for Women
> Parliament member from Canada (will also find out who to speak to about
> the June HRC resolution on VAW that Canada leads)
> Parliament member from the Philippines
> Jan Moolman, Senior Coordinator at the Women’s Rights Programme of the
> Association for Progressive Communications (focusing on our VAW work)
> 
> Chair: Ms Margaret Mensah Williams, President of the IPU Coordinating
> Committee of Women Parliamentarians and Vice-Chairperson of the Second
> National Council of Namibia.
> 
> 3) Side event / panel
> Ending violence against women online: Effective responses to promote
> women’s rights and safety - this is the FLOW research launch
> 
> Speakers:
> Laura Bretón Despradel, CLADEM in Dominican Republic
> Racheal Nakitare, President of the International Association of Women in
> Radio and Television (IAWRT) in Kenya
> Jan Moolman, Senior Coordinator at the Women’s Rights Programme of the
> Association for Progressive Communications
> 
> Moderator: Jac sm Kee, Women’s Rights Programme Manager at the
> Association for Progressive Communications
> 
> 4) High level panel, 13 March
> 'Intergenerational dialogue”
> UN Women
> Jac’s speaking here
> 
> 5) Side event / Panel:
> WITNESS
> “Women and technology: Effective documentation of sexual violence and
> advocacy”
> Dafne Plou from APC Women's Rights Programme speaking here (Dafne is
> also on the Argentina government delegation).
> 
> You can find more here: https://www.apc.org/en/node/20187/
> 
> We are also launching the #sectionJ campaign so please join us! and
> share far and wide! We’ve written up a series of tweets that you can
> use. See the link above.
> 
> 
> Jan Moolman
> Women's Rights Project Coordinator
> Association for Progressive Communications Women's Rights Programme
> skype ID: jan.moolman
> genderit.org
> takebackthetech.net
> apc.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Apc.policy mailing list
> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.policy
> To unsubscribe, email apc.policy-unsubscribe at lists.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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  7 15:08:56 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 12:08:56 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle!
 .de>
Message-ID: <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>

Wolfgang,

The issues that you mention of interest to CS are of course important and
should be addressed by CS in all cases, but there is also the overall
necessity to ensure that the broad framework of decision making and the
normative structures which underlie this are supportive of the general good
(including of course, civil society).  

The problem is that in the MS model there is no one to protect the public
interest... as was quite evident in this UNESCO instance where the entire
process seems to have been captured by MSists from the very beginning
(surely a framing in terms of democratic values and social justice is a
minimum expectation). 

As I think is quite evident in this particular instance as with others where
a MS approach is allowed to frame the discussion, it is not clear at all
that the general good is being or will be pursued.

M
 
-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: March 7, 2015 9:37 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

This discussion is bizarr.

Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity
building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they
communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a
"multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its
respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a
"one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and
decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community
level" what other stakeholders have decided.

Wolfgang

BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I
recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34.
Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says
that states "have rights and responsibilities for international
Internet-related public policy issues".
The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With
other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their
governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public
policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this
is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The
NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking
Innovation is needed. 




I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on
how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
advocating for a long time.

 

Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient
comfort to "force" it into international documents.

 

The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
either in theory or in practice.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
[mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
needs to be developed.

 

Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
not taken up at all.

 

Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
international documents.

 

Wolfgang Benedek

 

 

 

 

Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:

 

>And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a

>matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but

>rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote

>"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".

> 

>M

> 

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

>From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org

>[ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert 

>Klein

>Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM

>To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony

>of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> 

>On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang

>( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)

>wrote:

>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the

>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to

>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to

>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the

>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and

>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.

>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the

>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in

>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly

>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated

>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to

>> deepen their understanding.

>> 

>> Wolfgang Benedek

>> 

> 

>Dear Mr. Benedek,

> 

>thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only

>formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only

>partly included."

> 

>I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar

>importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would

>appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could

>share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only

>partially, included.

> 

>Thanks in advance,

> 

>Norbert Klein

>Cambodia

> 

> 

> 

> 

 




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Mar  7 16:16:55 2015
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Collaboratory)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:16:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20F8D742-0ACA-4B24-B7F2-1C54563DC4CD@collaboratory.de>

+1

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 7/3/2015, a las 16:11, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> escribió:
> 
> +1
> 
> Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things.
> 
> Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get lost by (mis-)using it strategically.
> 
> Jeanette
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> I
>> have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
>> concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the
>> examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic
>> Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It
>> would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of
>> democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia
>> first before forcing it into international documents.
>> 
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather
>>> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> wrote:
>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>> 
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>> 
>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>> 
>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities
>>> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>> included."
>>> 
>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>>> partially, included.
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> 
>>> Norbert Klein
>>> Cambodia
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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 tarakiyee at apc.org  Sat Mar  7 17:07:08 2015
From: tarakiyee at apc.org (Tarakiyee)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 23:07:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54FB768C.4030803@apc.org>

Dear all,

"ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any
consistent definition either in theory or in practice," is exactly how
some people from my country would describe their experience with
democracy. We live in a complex world, perhaps even as complex as the
Internet we are discussing how best it be governed.

Intersecting systems of oppression such as colonialism, patriarchy,
classism and supremecy, mean that any particapatory decision making
model would favour some over others. Likewise, the internet is not
flat, power and control is concentrated in some places more than the
others, such as corporates, governmental agencies, quasi-govermental
entities and multi-lateral agencies.

Multiple stakeholders exist, it's not some wishful invention, and it's
the interactions of these multistakholders that has governed the
internet so far. If it wasn't for the hard work of civil society,
there would have been little or no transperancy, no marginalised
voices, and possibly a lot of elitism. If this is the supposed goal of
the so called "MS proponents" as outlined in the thread above, then
the status quo was already much better than whatever "they" would hope
to achieve.

Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many
others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders
become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that
context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for
multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve
inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.

Am I disappointed to see the word "democratic" not included in the
outcome document? I am, but I won't lose any sleep over it. There is
so much more to take out of the outcome document in order to develop
an equal, just and democratic internet. It certainly won't be easy to
do so, but on the other hand, commitment to democracy in IG also won't
hinge on one document or two.

That is of course not meant to minimize the importance of these
discussions and concerns, I only mean to point to the other equally
important battles being fought. A strong, principled, and nuanced
approach in engagement with a variety of actors is the strongest tool
we have. A constantly adverserial position can be disadvantagous and
draining, especially if it makes us lose sight of gains we achieve.

Tarakiyee

Views here are my own.


On 07/03/15 21:08, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Wolfgang,
> 
> The issues that you mention of interest to CS are of course
> important and should be addressed by CS in all cases, but there is
> also the overall necessity to ensure that the broad framework of
> decision making and the normative structures which underlie this
> are supportive of the general good (including of course, civil
> society).
> 
> The problem is that in the MS model there is no one to protect the
> public interest... as was quite evident in this UNESCO instance
> where the entire process seems to have been captured by MSists from
> the very beginning (surely a framing in terms of democratic values
> and social justice is a minimum expectation).
> 
> As I think is quite evident in this particular instance as with
> others where a MS approach is allowed to frame the discussion, it
> is not clear at all that the general good is being or will be
> pursued.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: March
> 7, 2015 9:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael
> Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best
> Bits Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> This discussion is bizarr.
> 
> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, 
> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education,
> capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can
> achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other
> stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is
> involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil
> society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder
> approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision
> making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community 
> level" what other stakeholders have decided.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with
> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the
> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making
> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and
> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy
> issues". The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive
> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states
> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on
> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders.
> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have
> to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference
> offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is
> needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the
> understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet"
> but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize
> democracy in the context of the Internet something with which I
> (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been advocating
> for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed
> consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least
> based on my quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department,
> sufficient comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr.
> Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State
> Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy.
> Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to
> "force" it into international documents.
> 
> 
> 
> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for
> multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates
> acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context
> and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in
> practice.
> 
> 
> 
> M
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang
> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) 
> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM 
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re:
> [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of 
> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> 
> 
> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of
> democratic governance and a holistic approach to human rights
> although not as an alternative to multistakeholderism, the
> potential of which in my view still needs to be developed.
> 
> 
> 
> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to
> include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept
> supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively
> in the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the
> UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the
> concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware
> that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at
> all.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these
> discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values,
> but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a
> lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic
> Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the
> Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for
> a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the
> context of the internet among civil society and academia first
> before forcing it into international documents.
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfgang Benedek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:
> 
> 
> 
>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't
>> simply a
> 
>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document"
>> but
> 
>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to
>> promote
> 
>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
> 
>> 
> 
>> M
> 
>> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
> 
>> From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> 
>> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
> 
> 
>> Klein
> 
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
> 
>> To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> 
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>> Ceremony
> 
>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
> 
>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> 
>> wrote:
> 
>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference
>>> Connecting the
> 
>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is
>>> important to
> 
>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was
>>> to
> 
>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on
>>> the
> 
>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several
>>> plenary and
> 
>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
> 
>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it
>>> into the
> 
>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all
>>> work in
> 
>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>>> partly
> 
>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were
>>> elaborated
> 
>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in
>>> order to
> 
>>> deepen their understanding.
> 
>>> 
> 
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
> 
>> 
> 
>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
> 
>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>> only
> 
>> partly included."
> 
>> 
> 
>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a
>> similar
> 
>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I
>> would
> 
>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference,
>> could
> 
>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
>> only
> 
>> partially, included.
> 
>> 
> 
>> Thanks in advance,
> 
>> 
> 
>> Norbert Klein
> 
>> Cambodia
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: 
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see: 
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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  Sun Mar  8 01:05:55 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
Subject: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
 at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)
In-Reply-To: <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
Message-ID: <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>

On Mar 7, 2015, at 2:54 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>> So let me get this straight: you are happy to accept global
>> multi-stakeholder governance where there is consensus (including of
>> governments), but where there isn't, then national parliaments get to
>> decide.   
> 
> Yes, absolutely. In fact it's part of the public record that I've been
> proposing this for a couple of years.

I know; you may have missed my irony...

> Nota bene, while this proposal is consistent with JNC's understanding
> of the word "democratic", it's at the current stage still just a
> personal proposal from me. JNC has not yet endorsed any concrete
> proposal or proposals for implementing our demand for "platforms and
> mechanisms for global governance of the Internet that are democratic
> and participative".

So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!

>> Well, I'm glad we cleared that up, then.  
> 
> But sure, why not look for an even clearer way to express the demand
> that global multistakeholder governance of public policy matters must be
> really, really democratic, in the sense of the real meaning of the word.

So far from you we have "by democratic we mean, simply democratic" and "really, really democratic".  I'm not sure how much further that's taking us.  "Really, really democratic multi-stakeholderism"?

Democracy is not a checkbox - something you either have or you don't.  You can have more or less of it.  And there are several criteria that define it, representation being only one of them.  Despite JNC's specification that a global Internet governance body be UN-based, most of the UN suffers from deep democratic deficits.  That is one reason why the UN itself is opening up to multi-stakeholderism; over a decade ago Kofi Annan said, "In the past few decades, [civil society's] role has grown beyond all recognition -- as civil society groups have become advocates, shapers of policy, and allies of governments in the work on the ground.  Today, for the United Nations to succeed in many of its endeavours, partnership with civil society is not an option -- it is a necessity."

Conversely, there are non-governmental fora that are much more democratic, as the Internet technical community loves to remind us.

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sun Mar  8 01:41:48 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 07:41:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
 at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)
In-Reply-To: <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!

Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, like I
have given a link to my proposal? ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sun Mar  8 04:35:07 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 09:35:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FB768C.4030803@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com!
 > <54FB76
 8C.4030803@apc.org>
Message-ID: <844CEB6B-FEAF-4EC8-9610-BAF6869CD5BE@theglobaljournal.net>

Dear Tarakiyee,

Thanks for sharing your reflection, though I see a few ideas that are not fitting history and reality


"ill-formed..." Well democracy as a concept is not ill-formed at all. Its implementation varies a lot from one place, one people, one climate. But as a clear concept of governance, in particular when it comes to public policy making, it is most clear-formed.

"The Internet is not flat, power and control is concentrated..." Hopefully we all agree on this.

"Multiple stakeholders exists; it's not some wishful invention, and it's the interactions of these multistakeholders that has governed the Internet so far..." 
> To be honest, Internet wasn't born of multistaholderism. The computer scientists were certainly competing in an open fashion (sharing their ideas even though they might disagree on what would be the best solution to move forward). Some very few of them would put intellectual rights on their discovery, coding, ideas, some could not, some would not. Then technicians joined in, playing their speedy rough consensus to twist their impatience of to get things working. Multistakeholderistic approach is an ill-formed narrative that has appeared by the very late nineties, probably along the replacement of the academic driving (governing) forces by the ill-formed ICANN. Since then, this boutique has abusively been a screen smoke that, on behalf of the US department of commerce, and other USG bodies, including the White House has pretty well managed to make sure that nothing was able to change. Very little has changed since the mid-nineties as related to Internet, and the US concept of a new global domination by digital means. More concentration has emerged into the hands of a Web giant such as Google (born the same year as ICANN). Of course Google is not directly an Internet thing (more of a web) but thanks to its cash machinery, it has accelerated this US re-colonization of the world, killing the media (who cares?), buying its own commercial peace, twisting national laws, ignoring them, avoiding to pay tax everywhere it can, but more importantly gaining power within the Internet scheme of governance (how many Google employees are part of the IETF, IAB, ISOC, ICANN boards and their many many workshops, committees, commissions?). The asymmetry, and its unfairness, dates from the mid-nineties. Civil society since then, have achieved relatively little, if we take the US where is located most of the Internet power. Even lately Obama expressed a view, that after all, that was most consistent with the fact that the US had given birth to this wonder, so why not to admit it, and play according to the US rulers?) We are greatly far away from a global transnational democratic system. No need to remind you, or anyone, about the dark side of that power, its mass surveillance program, its diverse monopoles (CISCO for routers, Google for search, ICANN for creating TLDs, Verisign...)

> The interactions of these multistakeholders are most difficult to see or embrace as a sane activity. The difficulty to express a different opinion, view, idea is undeniable; if you do not agree with the "rough consensus, status-quo, decentralized, captured (single and open) Internet" then you are a pariah.

> If as you believe, multistakeholderism has made the Internet governance as it is today, a non democratic system as we know it, how can we trust it to make it democratic the next day? Why if it is supposed to lead us toward more democratic governance, did the US government and some CS groupies constantly refuse the word "democratic" to appear in a non binding statement at UNESCO? Should we then admit that in San Paulo, the Net Mundial final statement which contained the word "democratic" was nothing less than a mistake? Why a mistake, if you believe multistakeholderism is supposed to lead us in that direction, but with fierce opposition to it? Why the Netmundial summit transformed itself in a corporations-led initiative? Was this odd switch taking the right direction, toward a more democratic governance?

> If you are able to sleep over your disappointment to see that this simple word is not part of CS fundamental demands/requests/fights, then what's your expectation in terms of transforming the current asymmetry? Let it be and sleep well? The Jeanettes, Anriettes, Malcolms, are welcoming the small victories they seem to see over the last ten years? Can someone point us the list of these victories, and how it has affected the life of people with and without access to Internet? "We prefer a text than no text are they telling us." But what's the use of accumulating losses and defeats in such a brilliant and constant manner? Where are these many statements lead us in concrete terms? When they should side with JNC position, they side with US diplomats, opposing any single concrete advancement to rebalance the asymmetry.

We are about one year away from the NetMundial final statement: can someone tell us what has changed since Rousseff speech at the UN, since Chehade visited her to soften her views and kill her demand for a fair Internet governance? Nnenna is still having nice dreams, endorsed by sweet +1, as other CS are sleeping well. 

Who gives a dam about democratic principals in the digital space? I do, and I am happy to share this concern with other JNC participants, and tomorrow with civil society participating in the Internet Social Forum. I also believe that from APC to other CS groupings, it could be positive to look for common grounds, instead of trying to constantly distort JNC's point of view and ideas because it would be too disruptive, or simply challenging the status quo. JNC has no problem to work with others - JNC itself is a very large setting containing different views and reflections from all over the world - but this should be made in an honest fashion.

Honesty and trust within CS. Let's get ride of the money corrupting it. Let's get back to true CS work.

JC



Le 7 mars 2015 à 23:07, Tarakiyee a écrit :

> Dear all,
> 
> "ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any
> consistent definition either in theory or in practice," is exactly how
> some people from my country would describe their experience with
> democracy. We live in a complex world, perhaps even as complex as the
> Internet we are discussing how best it be governed.
> 
> Intersecting systems of oppression such as colonialism, patriarchy,
> classism and supremecy, mean that any particapatory decision making
> model would favour some over others. Likewise, the internet is not
> flat, power and control is concentrated in some places more than the
> others, such as corporates, governmental agencies, quasi-govermental
> entities and multi-lateral agencies.
> 
> Multiple stakeholders exist, it's not some wishful invention, and it's
> the interactions of these multistakholders that has governed the
> internet so far. If it wasn't for the hard work of civil society,
> there would have been little or no transperancy, no marginalised
> voices, and possibly a lot of elitism. If this is the supposed goal of
> the so called "MS proponents" as outlined in the thread above, then
> the status quo was already much better than whatever "they" would hope
> to achieve.
> 
> Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many
> others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders
> become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that
> context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for
> multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve
> inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.
> 
> Am I disappointed to see the word "democratic" not included in the
> outcome document? I am, but I won't lose any sleep over it. There is
> so much more to take out of the outcome document in order to develop
> an equal, just and democratic internet. It certainly won't be easy to
> do so, but on the other hand, commitment to democracy in IG also won't
> hinge on one document or two.
> 
> That is of course not meant to minimize the importance of these
> discussions and concerns, I only mean to point to the other equally
> important battles being fought. A strong, principled, and nuanced
> approach in engagement with a variety of actors is the strongest tool
> we have. A constantly adverserial position can be disadvantagous and
> draining, especially if it makes us lose sight of gains we achieve.
> 
> Tarakiyee
> 
> Views here are my own.
> 
> 
> On 07/03/15 21:08, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> Wolfgang,
>> 
>> The issues that you mention of interest to CS are of course
>> important and should be addressed by CS in all cases, but there is
>> also the overall necessity to ensure that the broad framework of
>> decision making and the normative structures which underlie this
>> are supportive of the general good (including of course, civil
>> society).
>> 
>> The problem is that in the MS model there is no one to protect the
>> public interest... as was quite evident in this UNESCO instance
>> where the entire process seems to have been captured by MSists from
>> the very beginning (surely a framing in terms of democratic values
>> and social justice is a minimum expectation).
>> 
>> As I think is quite evident in this particular instance as with
>> others where a MS approach is allowed to frame the discussion, it
>> is not clear at all that the general good is being or will be
>> pursued.
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: March
>> 7, 2015 9:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael
>> Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best
>> Bits Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> This discussion is bizarr.
>> 
>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, 
>> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education,
>> capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can
>> achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other
>> stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is
>> involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil
>> society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder
>> approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision
>> making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community 
>> level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with
>> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the
>> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making
>> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and
>> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy
>> issues". The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive
>> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states
>> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on
>> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders.
>> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have
>> to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference
>> offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is
>> needed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the
>> understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet"
>> but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize
>> democracy in the context of the Internet something with which I
>> (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been advocating
>> for a long time.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed
>> consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least
>> based on my quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department,
>> sufficient comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr.
>> Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State
>> Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy.
>> Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to
>> "force" it into international documents.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for
>> multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates
>> acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context
>> and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in
>> practice.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang
>> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) 
>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM 
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re:
>> [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of 
>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of
>> democratic governance and a holistic approach to human rights
>> although not as an alternative to multistakeholderism, the
>> potential of which in my view still needs to be developed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to
>> include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept
>> supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively
>> in the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the
>> UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the
>> concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware
>> that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at
>> all.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these
>> discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values,
>> but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a
>> lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic
>> Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the
>> Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for
>> a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the
>> context of the internet among civil society and academia first
>> before forcing it into international documents.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < 
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't
>>> simply a
>> 
>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document"
>>> but
>> 
>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to
>>> promote
>> 
>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> M
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>>> From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> 
>>> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>> 
>> 
>>> Klein
>> 
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>> 
>>> To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>> Ceremony
>> 
>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>> 
>>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference
>>>> Connecting the
>> 
>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is
>>>> important to
>> 
>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was
>>>> to
>> 
>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on
>>>> the
>> 
>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several
>>>> plenary and
>> 
>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>> 
>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it
>>>> into the
>> 
>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all
>>>> work in
>> 
>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>>>> partly
>> 
>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were
>>>> elaborated
>> 
>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in
>>>> order to
>> 
>>>> deepen their understanding.
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>> 
>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>> only
>> 
>>> partly included."
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a
>>> similar
>> 
>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I
>>> would
>> 
>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference,
>>> could
>> 
>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
>>> only
>> 
>>> partially, included.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Thanks in advance,
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Norbert Klein
>> 
>>> Cambodia
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: 
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see: 
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/0070dd09/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Mar  8 05:00:50 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 01:00:50 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FB768C.4030803@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <54FB768C.4030803@apc .org>
Message-ID: <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>

Hi Tarakiyee,

 

And welcome to this discussion, I believe it is your first contribution but you are the third contributor from APC (or the fourth if we include Jeanette Hoffman who is I believe (along with Avri Doria) an Internet Governance Advisor to APC with both of them being equally strong MSists). (I'm wondering whether there may be some reason for APC to be giving such an emphasis to this discussion (and a quite extraordinary commitment to MSism) that we aren't aware of but maybe that is a discussion for another day...

 

More inline...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tarakiyee
Sent: March 7, 2015 2:07 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

Dear all,

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

"ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice," is exactly how some people from my country would describe their experience with democracy. We live in a complex world, perhaps even as complex as the Internet we are discussing how best it be governed.

 

[MG] You clearly are unfortunate in your choice of countries and I should say that I'm very unhappy with the state of democratic governance in my own country but not sufficient to abandon an aspiration for democracy in favour of a plunge into the unknown and quite evidently elite driven path of Multistakeholderism.  My choice is to redouble my efforts in trying to make democracy work better in my country.

 

 

Intersecting systems of oppression such as colonialism, patriarchy, classism and supremecy, mean that any particapatory decision making model would favour some over others. Likewise, the internet is not flat, power and control is concentrated in some places more than the others, such as corporates, governmental agencies, quasi-govermental entities and multi-lateral agencies.

 

[MG] yes

 

 

Multiple stakeholders exist, it's not some wishful invention, and it's the interactions of these multistakholders that has governed the internet so far.

 

[MG] yes

 

 

If it wasn't for the hard work of civil society, there would have been little or no transperancy, no marginalised voices, and possibly a lot of elitism. If this is the supposed goal of the so called "MS proponents" as outlined in the thread above, then the status quo was already much better than whatever "they" would hope to achieve.

 

[MG] sorry I’m not following this… If you are saying that Civil Society has already accomplished a great deal with respect to Internet Governance I would ask that you point to these specific accomplishments.  What I see is a more or less out of control dominance by the status quo with little policy advance to check the power of the elites who control that status quo in the crucial areas such as privacy, surveillance, resource (Internet based wealth) distribution, concentration of decision making power, increasing corporate control and so on… but maybe I’m missing something. 

 

 

Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.

 

[MG] Again I think it is important to distinguish between processes of consultation where multistakeholder along with other processes of participation and engagement are absolutely desirable and processes of decision making which require a degree of formality, structure, broad based accountability, inclusiveness, and transparency – none of which characterize Multistakeholder processes as currently constituted.

 

 

Am I disappointed to see the word "democratic" not included in the outcome document? I am, but I won't lose any sleep over it. There is so much more to take out of the outcome document in order to develop an equal, just and democratic internet. It certainly won't be easy to do so, but on the other hand, commitment to democracy in IG also won't hinge on one document or two.

 

[MG] But again, this is not simply about “words”… it is about the fundamental norms and mechanisms going forward for global (Internet) governance and the quite visible attempt to suppress democracy as the basis for those norms and mechanisms with the substitution of elite based multistakeholder processes in their place—a process which I’m sure your  colleagues in APC can describe to you as one that has been gathering momentum for roughly a decade. And as an addendum it is quite clear from various statements and documents from the US government and others such as the WEF that the intention is that while MSism is being piloted in the Internet Governance sphere the intention is to ensure that it becomes the global norm in the widest possible range of areas of global decision making.

 

 

That is of course not meant to minimize the importance of these discussions and concerns, I only mean to point to the other equally important battles being fought. A strong, principled, and nuanced approach in engagement with a variety of actors is the strongest tool we have. A constantly adverserial position can be disadvantagous and draining, especially if it makes us lose sight of gains we achieve.

 

[MG] Again I agree with this but I think equally it is at times necessary to take a principled stand and for me the visible act of suppression of a commitment to democracy and social justice as was quite evident in this UNESCO enterprise is one of those occasions.

 

M

 

Tarakiyee

 

Views here are my own.

 

 

On 07/03/15 21:08, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> Wolfgang,

> 

> The issues that you mention of interest to CS are of course important 

> and should be addressed by CS in all cases, but there is also the 

> overall necessity to ensure that the broad framework of decision 

> making and the normative structures which underlie this are supportive 

> of the general good (including of course, civil society).

> 

> The problem is that in the MS model there is no one to protect the 

> public interest... as was quite evident in this UNESCO instance where 

> the entire process seems to have been captured by MSists from the very 

> beginning (surely a framing in terms of democratic values and social 

> justice is a minimum expectation).

> 

> As I think is quite evident in this particular instance as with others 

> where a MS approach is allowed to frame the discussion, it is not 

> clear at all that the general good is being or will be pursued.

> 

> M

> 

> -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 

> [ <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: March 7, 

> 2015 9:37 AM To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein; 

> Benedek, Wolfgang;  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits Subject: 

> AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of 

> "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> This discussion is bizarr.

> 

> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, 

> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, 

> capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve 

> more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. 

> Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal 

> partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities 

> and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded 

> from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to 

> implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have 

> decided.

> 

> Wolfgang

> 

> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" 

> I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 

> 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 

> 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for 

> international Internet-related public policy issues". The paragraph 

> 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other 

> words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their 

> governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related 

> public policy issues" with other stakeholders.

> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to 

> move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an 

> interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding 

> and role of democracy in the context of the internet"

> but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize democracy 

> in the context of the Internet something with which I (and the JNC) 

> completely agree and which we have been advocating for a long time.

> 

> 

> 

> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus 

> on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my 

> quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient 

> comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr.

> Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State 

> Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy.

> Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to 

> "force" it into international documents.

> 

> 

> 

> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for 

> multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates 

> acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and 

> lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice.

> 

> 

> 

> M

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang

> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)

> [ <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM

> To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re:

> [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of 

> "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> 

> 

> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic 

> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an 

> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view 

> still needs to be developed.

> 

> 

> 

> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include 

> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported 

> by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the 

> educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO 

> study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept 

> was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several 

> other proposals made by others were not taken up at all.

> 

> 

> 

> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, 

> I have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware 

> that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, 

> take the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the 

> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic 

> of Korea. It would be good to work for a consensus on the 

> understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet 

> among civil society and academia first before forcing it into 

> international documents.

> 

> 

> 

> Wolfgang Benedek

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < 

> < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:

> 

> 

> 

>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a

> 

>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document"

>> but

> 

>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote

> 

>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".

> 

>> 

> 

>> M

> 

>> 

> 

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

> 

>> From:  < <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>

>  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org

> 

>> [ < <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>

>  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert

> 

> 

>> Klein

> 

>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM

> 

>> To:  < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

> 

>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 

>> Ceremony

> 

>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang

> 

>> ( < <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>

>>  <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)

> 

>> wrote:

> 

>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the

> 

>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to

> 

>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to

> 

>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the

> 

>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary 

>>> and

> 

>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.

> 

>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into 

>>> the

> 

>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in

> 

>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly

> 

>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated

> 

>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to

> 

>>> deepen their understanding.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> Wolfgang Benedek

> 

>>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> Dear Mr. Benedek,

> 

>> 

> 

>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only

> 

>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only

> 

>> partly included."

> 

>> 

> 

>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar

> 

>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would

> 

>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, 

>> could

> 

>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only

> 

>> partially, included.

> 

>> 

> 

>> Thanks in advance,

> 

>> 

> 

>> Norbert Klein

> 

>> Cambodia

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________ You 

> received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: 

>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

> 

> For all other list information and functions, see: 

>  <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to 

> find the IGC's charter, see:  <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

> 

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

> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/213a7ca6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Mar  8 05:57:54 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:27:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle!
 .de>
Message-ID: <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>

I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and  some other 
emails of a similar kind.

We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the 
circularity with some specifics.

1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism 
(multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used 
in IG docs.

2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an 
impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted 
that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing 
of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do 
so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. 
I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed.

3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus 
on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with 
about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to 
democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people 
playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the 
middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont 
mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes 
into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.

4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at 
the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 
'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the 
whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been 
strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it 
not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner 
about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest 
consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on 
what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very 
clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?

parminder


On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> This discussion is bizarr.
>
> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.
>
>
>
>
> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on
> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
> advocating for a long time.
>
>   
>
> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
> US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient
> comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>
>   
>
> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
> either in theory or in practice.
>
>   
>
> M
>
>   
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>   
>
> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
> needs to be developed.
>
>   
>
> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
> not taken up at all.
>
>   
>
> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
> international documents.
>
>   
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:
>
>   
>
>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but
>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>> M
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>
>> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>
>> Klein
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>> To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> wrote:
>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>> deepen their understanding.
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>> partly included."
>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>> partially, included.
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Norbert Klein
>> Cambodia
>   
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/bde24433/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Mar  8 06:16:41 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:46:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net>

And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related 
global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that 
Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is 
happening quite fine?)

If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role 
as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal 
footing,  in Internet-related global policy decision making -  that is 
enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put 
behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people 
choke on making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from 
simple democratic principles and ideals.

Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are 
evident here, which so many find so unsightly?

Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that 
they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back 
immediately on that.

Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of 
differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email 
exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, 
and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek 
closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise 
differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, 
we will be making progress.

parminder



On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and  some other 
> emails of a similar kind.
>
> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the 
> circularity with some specifics.
>
> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism 
> (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be 
> used in IG docs.
>
> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an 
> impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively 
> insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others 
> thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion 
> (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do 
> you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively 
> dismayed.
>
> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus 
> on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with 
> about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to 
> democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people 
> playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the 
> middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont 
> mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word 
> goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.
>
> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said 
> at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the 
> term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, 
> the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been 
> strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it 
> not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar 
> manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest 
> consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on 
> what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very 
> clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> This discussion is bizarr.
>>
>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on
>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
>> advocating for a long time.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
>> US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient
>> comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>
>>   
>>
>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
>> either in theory or in practice.
>>
>>   
>>
>> M
>>
>>   
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>   
>>
>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
>> needs to be developed.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
>> not taken up at all.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
>> international documents.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>
>>   
>>
>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but
>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>> M
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>
>>> [<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>>
>>> Klein
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>> To:<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>>> (<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>  wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> wrote:
>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>>> partly included."
>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>>> partially, included.
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Norbert Klein
>>> Cambodia
>>   
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/ac95635e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Sun Mar  8 09:08:51 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 13:08:51 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand at http://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions that grew out of technical work on making the internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s

Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a social and political program".

Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance?

Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of connected dots?

//Erik

________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is happening quite fine?)

If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal footing,  in Internet-related global policy decision making -  that is enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple democratic principles and ideals.

Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are evident here, which so many find so unsightly?

Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back immediately on that.

Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we will be making progress.

parminder



On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and  some other emails of a similar kind.

We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the circularity with some specifics.

1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in IG docs.

2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed.

3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.

4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?

parminder


On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

This discussion is bizarr.

Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.

Wolfgang

BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.




I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on
how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
advocating for a long time.



Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient
comfort to "force" it into international documents.



The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
either in theory or in practice.



M



-----Original Message-----
From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
[mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"



First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
needs to be developed.



Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
not taken up at all.



Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
international documents.



Wolfgang Benedek









Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com><mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>:





And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a


matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but


rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote


"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".


M


-----Original Message-----


From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>


governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>



[ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>


mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert



Klein


Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM


To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>


Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony


of "Connecting the Dots Conference"


On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang


( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at><mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)


wrote:


As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the


dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to


put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to


give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the


future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and


16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.


The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the


outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in


progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly


included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated


on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to


deepen their understanding.


Wolfgang Benedek


Dear Mr. Benedek,


thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only


formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only


partly included."


I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar


importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would


appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could


share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only


partially, included.


Thanks in advance,


Norbert Klein


Cambodia










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

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

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





____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/6788603f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar  8 09:31:46 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 19:01:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
 <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
 <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
 <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
 <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net>
 <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the tendency 
for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles.

Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.  The 
question here is what political significance will get attached to that 
word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors 
multilateral governance structures.



On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik 
<erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:

> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think 
> the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe 
> described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand at 
> http://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency, 
> participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions 
> that grew out of technical work on making the internet.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s
>
> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency, 
> participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a 
> social and political program".
>
> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance?
>
> Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of 
> connected dots?
>
> //Erik
>
> ________________________________
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder 
> [parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael 
> Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of 
> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
> And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related 
> global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that 
> Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is 
> happening quite fine?)
>
> If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role as 
> governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal 
> footing,  in Internet-related global policy decision making -  that is 
> enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind 
> us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on 
> making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple 
> democratic principles and ideals.
>
> Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are evident 
> here, which so many find so unsightly?
>
> Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that they 
> want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back immediately 
> on that.
>
> Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of 
> differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email 
> exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and 
> feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek 
> closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise 
> differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we 
> will be making progress.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and  some other 
> emails of a similar kind.
>
> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the 
> circularity with some specifics.
>
> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism 
> (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in 
> IG docs.
>
> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an impotant 
> point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted that 
> democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of such 
> insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this 
> discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, 
> reads a lot, and is positively dismayed.
>
> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus on 
> 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about 40 
> references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic? Did 
> it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive word 
> games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole thing, 
> no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will 
> always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets 
> please be fair here.
>
> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at the 
> meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 'MS' 
> as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole space 
> would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong denouncements 
> and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have been so? Then 
> why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' 
> term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other 
> hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if the MS 
> word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> This discussion is bizarr.
>
> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, 
> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity 
> building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they 
> communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a 
> "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its 
> respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a 
> "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and 
> decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community 
> level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I 
> recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. 
> Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says 
> that states "have rights and responsibilities for international 
> Internet-related public policy issues".
> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With 
> other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their 
> governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public 
> policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But 
> this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The 
> NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking 
> Innovation is needed.
>
>
>
>
> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on
> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
> advocating for a long time.
>
>
>
> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
> US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient
> comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>
>
>
> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
> either in theory or in practice.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benedek, Wolfgang 
> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 
> Michael Gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>
>
> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
> needs to be developed.
>
>
>
> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
> not taken up at all.
>
>
>
> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
> international documents.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com><mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> 
> gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>:
>
>
>
>
>
> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>
>
> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but
>
>
> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>
>
> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>
>
> M
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> From:  
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
>
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
>
>
> [ 
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
>
> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>
>
>
> Klein
>
>
> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>
>
> To:  
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>
>
> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>
> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>
>
> ( 
> <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at><mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> 
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>
>
> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>
>
> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>
>
> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>
>
> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>
>
> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>
>
> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>
>
> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>
>
> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>
>
> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>
>
> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>
>
> deepen their understanding.
>
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>
> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>
>
> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>
>
> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>
>
> partly included."
>
>
> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>
>
> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>
>
> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>
>
> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>
>
> partially, included.
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
> Norbert Klein
>
>
> Cambodia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/736cf027/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Mar  8 10:47:24 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:47:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony  of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <844CEB6B-FEAF-4EC8-9610-BAF6869CD5BE@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
 <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
 <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
 <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
 <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
 <54FB768C.4030803@apc.org>
 <844CEB6B-FEAF-4EC8-9610-BAF6869CD5BE@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <E1YUcTQ-0003ml-Jk@igcaucus.org>

JCN for JNC. Let JFC add something ...

The universe is pancratic. You cannot change 
that. It is a network of networked stand-alone 
quantum processes that together compute the huge 
Evolution number. Some there are degrading 
(entropy) some others are improving things 
(negentropy). The computation proceeds as fractal 
multi-level multi-interaction system of 
monolectic action atoms, which in turn result (ny 
enaction atoms) in reaction atoms.

These actions/(enacton)/reactions triples are 
chained (catena-ted) in logic (linear) sequences 
which dialectically interact/react to permit end 
to end routes within the general market (agora) 
polylectic cloud, with the result of flows and 
ebbs (that an higher conceptualisation layer you 
will accept as a "Y/N" or "0 1)..

Sometimes there are agoric conflicts that are 
solved by self-organizied criticality (SOC: 
earthbreaks, avalanches, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality). 
This is the way things work for 15 billions 
years. Man has got the idea to prevent these 
"catatrophes" (the correct mathematical word) 
from happening - individually first, then in 
group, now at humanity level. This has led to 
monocracy. Then, on the Athens agora, to 
democracy. in using the "yes/no" vote. Today the 
Athens agora extends to the entire world, through digitality.

This is because we discovered that the world is 
digital, i.e. made of "yes/no" or "0 1". It is 
digital, i.e.discrete at the "atomic" level 
(actually "fractal level" as any filter size will 
do). It is our digital brain's perception that 
filters fractality, making us believe in the 
virtuallity that the world would be continuous.

The deeper you go the smallest is the atom, the 
infinitly small is real/virtual who knows? It is 
numeric: billions of figures after the dot are 
intellectually possible. Between two Euclide's 
point there is an infinity of dots. Between two 
pixel there is nothing. Yet it works!

The real universe is the realm of discrete 
mathematics 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics), 
while our spiritual universe  is the realm of 
continuous mathematics. The bridge between them 
can be searched in the graph theory, i.e. the 
catenet science, the networks of networks.

This is where we are. And this is more complex 
than democracy because polylectic agorics is open 
and multidimentional while linear dialectic logic 
is closed: there decisions are simple "Y/N" 
forks. In agorics there can be an accepted 
"middle". Actually, the agoric concept of 
"network of networks where travel datagrams" 
supports a different set of laws (of complexity) 
than the Laws of Thoughs 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought). 
Edgar Morin and many others have already 
considered a "few" things in that area.

Right now, the more pancratic governance style we 
can think of (Machiavelli,Spinoza) is a 
multitude's (people without a social contract 
with a sovereignty) omnistakeholder approach 
which is the way the network of networks actually 
work. The temptation of a "backbone cabal" 
(multistakeholder) is always here. Experts know 
better what is good for you (Dave Farber's 
mailing list quotes 
http://gmufourthestate.com/2015/03/03/less-democracy-better-government-says-mason-professor/)

jfc



At 09:35 08/03/2015, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>Dear Tarakiyee,
>
>Thanks for sharing your reflection, though I see 
>a few ideas that are not fitting history and reality
>
>"ill-formed..." Well democracy as a concept is 
>not ill-formed at all. Its implementation varies 
>a lot from one place, one people, one climate. 
>But as a clear concept of governance, in 
>particular when it comes to public policy making, it is most clear-formed.
>
>"The Internet is not flat, power and control is 
>concentrated..." Hopefully we all agree on this.
>
>"Multiple stakeholders exists; it's not some 
>wishful invention, and it's the interactions of 
>these multistakeholders that has governed the Internet so far..."
> > To be honest, Internet wasn't born of 
> multistaholderism. The computer scientists were 
> certainly competing in an open fashion (sharing 
> their ideas even though they might disagree on 
> what would be the best solution to move 
> forward). Some very few of them would put 
> intellectual rights on their discovery, coding, 
> ideas, some could not, some would not. Then 
> technicians joined in, playing their speedy 
> rough consensus to twist their impatience of to 
> get things working. Multistakeholderistic 
> approach is an ill-formed narrative that has 
> appeared by the very late nineties, probably 
> along the replacement of the academic driving 
> (governing) forces by the ill-formed ICANN. 
> Since then, this boutique has abusively been a 
> screen smoke that, on behalf of the US 
> department of commerce, and other USG bodies, 
> including the White House has pretty well 
> managed to make sure that nothing was able to 
> change. Very little has changed since the 
> mid-nineties as related to Internet, and the US 
> concept of a new global domination by digital 
> means. More concentration has emerged into the 
> hands of a Web giant such as Google (born the 
> same year as ICANN). Of course Google is not 
> directly an Internet thing (more of a web) but 
> thanks to its cash machinery, it has 
> accelerated this US re-colonization of the 
> world, killing the media (who cares?), buying 
> its own commercial peace, twisting national 
> laws, ignoring them, avoiding to pay tax 
> everywhere it can, but more importantly gaining 
> power within the Internet scheme of governance 
> (how many Google employees are part of the 
> IETF, IAB, ISOC, ICANN boards and their many 
> many workshops, committees, commissions?). The 
> asymmetry, and its unfairness, dates from the 
> mid-nineties. Civil society since then, have 
> achieved relatively little, if we take the US 
> where is located most of the Internet power. 
> Even lately Obama expressed a view, that after 
> all, that was most consistent with the fact 
> that the US had given birth to this wonder, so 
> why not to admit it, and play according to the 
> US rulers?) We are greatly far away from a 
> global transnational democratic system. No need 
> to remind you, or anyone, about the dark side 
> of that power, its mass surveillance program, 
> its diverse monopoles (CISCO for routers, 
> Google for search, ICANN for creating TLDs, Verisign...)
>
> > The interactions of these multistakeholders 
> are most difficult to see or embrace as a sane 
> activity. The difficulty to express a different 
> opinion, view, idea is undeniable; if you do 
> not agree with the "rough consensus, 
> status-quo, decentralized, captured (single and 
> open) Internet" then you are a pariah.
>
> > If as you believe, multistakeholderism has 
> made the Internet governance as it is today, a 
> non democratic system as we know it, how can we 
> trust it to make it democratic the next day? 
> Why if it is supposed to lead us toward more 
> democratic governance, did the US government 
> and some CS groupies constantly refuse the word 
> "democratic" to appear in a non binding 
> statement at UNESCO? Should we then admit that 
> in San Paulo, the Net Mundial final statement 
> which contained the word "democratic" was 
> nothing less than a mistake? Why a mistake, if 
> you believe multistakeholderism is supposed to 
> lead us in that direction, but with fierce 
> opposition to it? Why the Netmundial summit 
> transformed itself in a corporations-led 
> initiative? Was this odd switch taking the 
> right direction, toward a more democratic governance?
>
> > If you are able to sleep over your 
> disappointment to see that this simple word is 
> not part of CS fundamental 
> demands/requests/fights, then what's your 
> expectation in terms of transforming the 
> current asymmetry? Let it be and sleep well? 
> The Jeanettes, Anriettes, Malcolms, are 
> welcoming the small victories they seem to see 
> over the last ten years? Can someone point us 
> the list of these victories, and how it has 
> affected the life of people with and without 
> access to Internet? "We prefer a text than no 
> text are they telling us." But what's the use 
> of accumulating losses and defeats in such a 
> brilliant and constant manner? Where are these 
> many statements lead us in concrete terms? When 
> they should side with JNC position, they side 
> with US diplomats, opposing any single concrete 
> advancement to rebalance the asymmetry.
>
>We are about one year away from the NetMundial 
>final statement: can someone tell us what has 
>changed since Rousseff speech at the UN, since 
>Chehade visited her to soften her views and kill 
>her demand for a fair Internet governance? 
>Nnenna is still having nice dreams, endorsed by 
>sweet +1, as other CS are sleeping well.
>
>Who gives a dam about democratic principals in 
>the digital space? I do, and I am happy to share 
>this concern with other JNC participants, and 
>tomorrow with civil society participating in the 
>Internet Social Forum. I also believe that from 
>APC to other CS groupings, it could be positive 
>to look for common grounds, instead of trying to 
>constantly distort JNC's point of view and ideas 
>because it would be too disruptive, or simply 
>challenging the status quo. JNC has no problem 
>to work with others - JNC itself is a very large 
>setting containing different views and 
>reflections from all over the world - but this 
>should be made in an honest fashion.
>
>Honesty and trust within CS. Let's get ride of 
>the money corrupting it. Let's get back to true CS work.
>
>JC
>
>
>
>Le 7 mars 2015 à 23:07, Tarakiyee a écrit :
>
>>Dear all,
>>
>>"ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any
>>consistent definition either in theory or in practice," is exactly how
>>some people from my country would describe their experience with
>>democracy. We live in a complex world, perhaps even as complex as the
>>Internet we are discussing how best it be governed.
>>
>>Intersecting systems of oppression such as colonialism, patriarchy,
>>classism and supremecy, mean that any particapatory decision making
>>model would favour some over others. Likewise, the internet is not
>>flat, power and control is concentrated in some places more than the
>>others, such as corporates, governmental agencies, quasi-govermental
>>entities and multi-lateral agencies.
>>
>>Multiple stakeholders exist, it's not some wishful invention, and it's
>>the interactions of these multistakholders that has governed the
>>internet so far. If it wasn't for the hard work of civil society,
>>there would have been little or no transperancy, no marginalised
>>voices, and possibly a lot of elitism. If this is the supposed goal of
>>the so called "MS proponents" as outlined in the thread above, then
>>the status quo was already much better than whatever "they" would hope
>>to achieve.
>>
>>Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many
>>others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders
>>become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that
>>context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for
>>multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve
>>inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.
>>
>>Am I disappointed to see the word "democratic" not included in the
>>outcome document? I am, but I won't lose any sleep over it. There is
>>so much more to take out of the outcome document in order to develop
>>an equal, just and democratic internet. It certainly won't be easy to
>>do so, but on the other hand, commitment to democracy in IG also won't
>>hinge on one document or two.
>>
>>That is of course not meant to minimize the importance of these
>>discussions and concerns, I only mean to point to the other equally
>>important battles being fought. A strong, principled, and nuanced
>>approach in engagement with a variety of actors is the strongest tool
>>we have. A constantly adverserial position can be disadvantagous and
>>draining, especially if it makes us lose sight of gains we achieve.
>>
>>Tarakiyee
>>
>>Views here are my own.
>>
>>
>>On 07/03/15 21:08, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>Wolfgang,
>>>
>>>The issues that you mention of interest to CS are of course
>>>important and should be addressed by CS in all cases, but there is
>>>also the overall necessity to ensure that the broad framework of
>>>decision making and the normative structures which underlie this
>>>are supportive of the general good (including of course, civil
>>>society).
>>>
>>>The problem is that in the MS model there is no one to protect the
>>>public interest... as was quite evident in this UNESCO instance
>>>where the entire process seems to have been captured by MSists from
>>>the very beginning (surely a framing in terms of democratic values
>>>and social justice is a minimum expectation).
>>>
>>>As I think is quite evident in this particular instance as with
>>>others where a MS approach is allowed to frame the discussion, it
>>>is not clear at all that the general good is being or will be
>>>pursued.
>>>
>>>M
>>>
>>>-----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>>>[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: March
>>>7, 2015 9:37 AM To: 
>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael
>>>Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; 
>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best
>>>Bits Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>>Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>
>>>This discussion is bizarr.
>>>
>>>Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
>>>infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education,
>>>capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can
>>>achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other
>>>stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is
>>>involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil
>>>society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder
>>>approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision
>>>making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community
>>>level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>>
>>>Wolfgang
>>>
>>>BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with
>>>paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the
>>>light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making
>>>procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and
>>>responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy
>>>issues". The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive
>>>rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states
>>>(and their governments) have to "share decision making" on
>>>"Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders.
>>>This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have
>>>to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference
>>>offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is
>>>needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the
>>>understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet"
>>>but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize
>>>democracy in the context of the Internet something with which I
>>>(and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been advocating
>>>for a long time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed
>>>consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least
>>>based on my quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department,
>>>sufficient comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr.
>>>Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State
>>>Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy.
>>>Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to
>>>"force" it into international documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for
>>>multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates
>>>acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context
>>>and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in
>>>practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang
>>>(<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>[mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>>To: 
>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 
>>>Michael Gurstein Subject: Re:
>>>[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>>>"Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of
>>>democratic governance and a holistic approach to human rights
>>>although not as an alternative to multistakeholderism, the
>>>potential of which in my view still needs to be developed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to
>>>include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept
>>>supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively
>>>in the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the
>>>UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the
>>>concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware
>>>that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at
>>>all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these
>>>discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values,
>>>but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a
>>>lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic
>>>Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the
>>>Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for
>>>a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the
>>>context of the internet among civil society and academia first
>>>before forcing it into international documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>>><<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> 
>>><mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't
>>>>simply a
>>>
>>>>matter of the concept "not making it into the final document"
>>>>but
>>>
>>>>rather that those involved made the clear political choice to
>>>>promote
>>>
>>>>"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>>
>>>
>>>>M
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>>From: 
>>>><<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>
>>>>[ 
>>>><<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>>>Klein
>>>
>>>>Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>>
>>>>To: 
>>>><<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>>>Ceremony
>>>
>>>>of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>>>
>>>>( 
>>>><<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>>>><mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference
>>>>>Connecting the
>>>
>>>>>dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is
>>>>>important to
>>>
>>>>>put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was
>>>>>to
>>>
>>>>>give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on
>>>>>the
>>>
>>>>>future priorities in this field. This was done in several
>>>>>plenary and
>>>
>>>>>16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>
>>>>>The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it
>>>>>into the
>>>
>>>>>outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all
>>>>>work in
>>>
>>>>>progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>>>>>partly
>>>
>>>>>included. I also do not remember that these concepts were
>>>>>elaborated
>>>
>>>>>on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in
>>>>>order to
>>>
>>>>>deepen their understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>
>>>
>>>>thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>>>
>>>>formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>>only
>>>
>>>>partly included."
>>>
>>>
>>>>I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a
>>>>similar
>>>
>>>>importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I
>>>>would
>>>
>>>>appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference,
>>>>could
>>>
>>>>share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
>>>>only
>>>
>>>>partially, included.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>>
>>>>Norbert Klein
>>>
>>>>Cambodia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________ You
>>>received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance 
>>>To edit your profile and
>>>to find the IGC's charter, see: 
>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>Translate this email: 
>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>> 
>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>> 
>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: 
>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sun Mar  8 11:31:08 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 16:31:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC21!
 89.601000
 0@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <8B99A046-8DB9-481E-AB7E-FC501F9FFE88@theglobaljournal.net>

> The merits of democracy are not being argued (GREAT NEWS!!) here as much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles.
> 
Solely? No. This is solely your assumption.
In a multilateral context? No, wrong again. One problem that do have MSists is their dear denial of any role to governments. MSits favorite sport is governmental bashing (except for USG, the good guy of their story).
In UN circles. No. Most of its use happens outside the UN, in civil life.

> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.  
> 

Would it be "through consensus" democracies would have gone no way. A majority, made by honest voting in a clear constitutional framework, can only exercise the will of the people. A consensus can be a good warning paving the way to a new collective rule, still a vote might often turn it into something that will be respected, transparent and accountable. Consensus is a very vague process, easily flawed. Rough consensus is even worse. Again governance is no to be built on techies's philosophy of daily practice. Consensus related to governance fits to capos and rubber barons. Not to public policy making (which is where we do have a fight).

> The question here is what political significance will get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. 
> 

Especially when its very existence is denied by MSits who, amusingly, claimed to be MSits for the sake of democracy. MSits know better what the people need.

No, JNC is not favoring Multilateral governance. This another assumption is a lie. JNC is advocating a third way. Most MSists are bodyguards to the status-quo. We see it in any list, any venue. We have seen it again during the connecting the dots, or the Dotting the I's, as Louis Pouzin put it.




Le 8 mars 2015 à 14:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :

> The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles.
> 
> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.  The question here is what political significance will get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. 
> 
> On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:
> 
>> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand athttp://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions that grew out of technical work on making the internet.
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s
>> 
>> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a social and political program".
>> 
>> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance?
>> 
>> Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of connected dots?
>> 
>> //Erik
>> 
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
>> Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is happening quite fine?)
>> 
>> If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal footing,  in Internet-related global policy decision making -  that is enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple democratic principles and ideals. 
>> 
>> Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are evident here, which so many find so unsightly?
>> 
>> Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back immediately on that.
>> 
>> Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we will be making progress. 
>> 
>> parminder  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
>>> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and  some other emails of a similar kind.
>>> 
>>> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the circularity with some specifics.
>>> 
>>> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in IG docs.
>>> 
>>> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed. 
>>> 
>>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here. 
>>> 
>>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>> This discussion is bizarr.
>>>> 
>>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
>>>> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity
>>>> building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they
>>>> communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a
>>>> "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal
>>>> partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and
>>>> options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded
>>>> from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement
>>>> on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>>> 
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with
>>>> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the
>>>> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making
>>>> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and
>>>> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
>>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive
>>>> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states
>>>> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on
>>>> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders.
>>>> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move
>>>> forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting
>>>> model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
>>>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a
>>>> consensus on
>>>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
>>>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
>>>> advocating for a long time.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
>>>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my
>>>> quotes from Mr.
>>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
>>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
>>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
>>>> US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have
>>>> sufficient
>>>> comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
>>>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
>>>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
>>>> either in theory or in practice.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> M
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] 
>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
>>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
>>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
>>>> needs to be developed.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
>>>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
>>>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
>>>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
>>>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
>>>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
>>>> not taken up at all.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
>>>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
>>>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
>>>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
>>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
>>>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
>>>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
>>>> international documents.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't
>>>>> simply a 
>>>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final
>>>>> document" but 
>>>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote 
>>>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>>>> M
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> 
>>>>> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf
>>>> Of Norbert 
>>>> 
>>>>> Klein
>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>>>> To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony 
>>>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang 
>>>>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to 
>>>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to 
>>>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the 
>>>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the 
>>>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in 
>>>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly 
>>>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated 
>>>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to 
>>>>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only 
>>>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>>> only 
>>>>> partly included."
>>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a
>>>>> similar 
>>>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I
>>>>> would 
>>>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could 
>>>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
>>>>> only 
>>>>> partially, included.
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>> Norbert Klein
>>>>> Cambodia
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/b294c259/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar  8 11:34:17 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 21:04:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <8B99A046-8DB9-481E-AB7E-FC501F9FFE88@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
 <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
 <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
 <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
 <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net>
 <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
 <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <8B99A046-8DB9-481E-AB7E-FC501F9FFE88@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <14bfa05b508.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Amazing. A third way that still works out in favor of the multilateral 
advocates

If it walks like a multilateral duck, if it quacks like a multilateral duck..



On March 8, 2015 9:01:14 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal 
<jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> > The merits of democracy are not being argued (GREAT NEWS!!) here as much 
> as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context 
> in UN circles.
> >
> Solely? No. This is solely your assumption.
> In a multilateral context? No, wrong again. One problem that do have MSists 
> is their dear denial of any role to governments. MSits favorite sport is 
> governmental bashing (except for USG, the good guy of their story).
> In UN circles. No. Most of its use happens outside the UN, in civil life.
>
> > Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.
> >
>
> Would it be "through consensus" democracies would have gone no way. A 
> majority, made by honest voting in a clear constitutional framework, can 
> only exercise the will of the people. A consensus can be a good warning 
> paving the way to a new collective rule, still a vote might often turn it 
> into something that will be respected, transparent and accountable. 
> Consensus is a very vague process, easily flawed. Rough consensus is even 
> worse. Again governance is no to be built on techies's philosophy of daily 
> practice. Consensus related to governance fits to capos and rubber barons. 
> Not to public policy making (which is where we do have a fight).
>
> > The question here is what political significance will get attached to 
> that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly 
> favors multilateral governance structures.
> >
>
> Especially when its very existence is denied by MSits who, amusingly, 
> claimed to be MSits for the sake of democracy. MSits know better what the 
> people need.
>
> No, JNC is not favoring Multilateral governance. This another assumption is 
> a lie. JNC is advocating a third way. Most MSists are bodyguards to the 
> status-quo. We see it in any list, any venue. We have seen it again during 
> the connecting the dots, or the Dotting the I's, as Louis Pouzin put it.
>
>
>
>
> Le 8 mars 2015 à 14:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>
> > The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the tendency 
> for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles.
> >
> > Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.  
> The question here is what political significance will get attached to that 
> word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors 
> multilateral governance structures.
> >
> > On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik 
> <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think 
> the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe 
> described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand 
> athttp://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency, 
> participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions 
> that grew out of technical work on making the internet.
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s
> >>
> >> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency, 
> participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a 
> social and political program".
> >>
> >> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance?
> >>
> >> Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of 
> connected dots?
> >>
> >> //Erik
> >>
> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder 
> [parminder at itforchange.net]
> >> Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16
> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael 
> Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony 
> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >>
> >> And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related 
> global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that 
> Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is 
> happening quite fine?)
> >>
> >> If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role 
> as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal 
> footing,  in Internet-related global policy decision making -  that is 
> enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind 
> us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on 
> making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple 
> democratic principles and ideals.
> >>
> >> Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are 
> evident here, which so many find so unsightly?
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that 
> they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back 
> immediately on that.
> >>
> >> Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of 
> differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email 
> exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and 
> feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek 
> closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise 
> differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we 
> will be making progress.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
> >>> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and  some other 
> emails of a similar kind.
> >>>
> >>> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the 
> circularity with some specifics.
> >>>
> >>> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism 
> (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in 
> IG docs.
> >>>
> >>> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an 
> impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted 
> that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of 
> such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in 
> this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and 
> JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed.
> >>>
> >>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus 
> on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about 
> 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic? 
> Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive 
> word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole 
> thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we 
> will always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. 
> Lets please be fair here.
> >>>
> >>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at 
> the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 
> 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole 
> space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong 
> denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have 
> been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the 
> 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this 
> other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if 
> the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. 
> Anyone?
> >>>
> >>> parminder
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> >>>> This discussion is bizarr.
> >>>>
> >>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
> >>>> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, 
> capacity
> >>>> building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they
> >>>> communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a
> >>>> "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal
> >>>> partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and
> >>>> options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded
> >>>> from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement
> >>>> on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wolfgang
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with
> >>>> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the
> >>>> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making
> >>>> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and
> >>>> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
> >>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive
> >>>> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states
> >>>> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on
> >>>> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders.
> >>>> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to 
> move
> >>>> forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an 
> interesting
> >>>> model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
> >>>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a
> >>>> consensus on
> >>>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
> >>>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we 
> have been
> >>>> advocating for a long time.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus 
> on the
> >>>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my
> >>>> quotes from Mr.
> >>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
> >>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
> >>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental 
> pillar of
> >>>> US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have
> >>>> sufficient
> >>>> comfort to "force" it into international documents.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for 
> multistakeholderism,
> >>>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
> >>>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
> >>>> either in theory or in practice.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> M
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> >>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
> >>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
> >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
> >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
> >>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
> >>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
> >>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view 
> still
> >>>> needs to be developed.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
> >>>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported 
> by the
> >>>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
> >>>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
> >>>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
> >>>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others 
> were
> >>>> not taken up at all.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, 
> I have
> >>>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the 
> concept
> >>>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
> >>>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of 
> Congo
> >>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to 
> work
> >>>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the 
> context of
> >>>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
> >>>> international documents.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Wolfgang Benedek
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
> >>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't
> >>>>> simply a
> >>>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final
> >>>>> document" but
> >>>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
> >>>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
> >>>>> M
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> >>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>
> >>>>> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> >>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf
> >>>> Of Norbert
> >>>>
> >>>>> Klein
> >>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
> >>>>> To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
> >>>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
> >>>>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
> >>>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
> >>>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
> >>>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
> >>>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
> >>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
> >>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
> >>>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
> >>>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
> >>>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
> >>>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
> >>>>>> deepen their understanding.
> >>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
> >>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
> >>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
> >>>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
> >>>>> only
> >>>>> partly included."
> >>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a
> >>>>> similar
> >>>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
> >>>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
> >>>>> only
> >>>>> partially, included.
> >>>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>>> Norbert Klein
> >>>>> Cambodia
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>>
> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>> To 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/87899893/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Sun Mar  8 12:26:32 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 09:26:32 -0700
Subject: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
 at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)
In-Reply-To: <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
Message-ID: <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>

On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!
> 
> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, like I
> have given a link to my proposal? ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)

If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic, higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401- surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/) count for anything?

If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can expect news about another effort to produce something like this in the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon and I'm not going to steal its thunder.

Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.

I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list and I'll point you to it.

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  8 13:19:14 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 10:19:14 -0700
Subject: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
 at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)
In-Reply-To: <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
Message-ID: <0a4601d059c4$00cb7420$02625c60$@gmail.com>

I'm sure we can toss theoretical schema's around forever (600 pages !?!) but
I think it may be more useful to deal with the practice.  I hardly need to
point to instances of democratic practice with socially desirable outcomes
in all areas, at all levels, over the last 1000 years or so… As for the
practical examples of multistakeholder processes, apart from those encased
in technical issues and the technical community I’m not so sure… However in
the spirit of open inquiry I'm specifically asking for successful instances
of multistakeholder decision making that we can look at, analyse and assess
apart from those which are continuously referred to from within the
technical community ecosystem.

 

In that instance I'll repeat my question concerning the purportedly
"successful
<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/news-a
nd-in-focus-articles/all-news/news/a_multi_stakeholder_gathering_adopts_an_o
utcome_document_at_the_connecting_the_dots_conference/#.VPrafDWgmPQ> "
“multistakeholder” process which was the method for preparing the UNESCO
conference Outcome Document…

 

Here, so far undisputed is how I described this process in an earlier email
“As an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes might
actually operate in practice one need only reflect on the processes of
decision making that went into this purportedly multistakeholder Output
Document -- the highly questionable and completely non-transparent selection
of the editorial committee (from a small circle of the Internet Governance
elite), where potentially critical but equally qualified participants were
excluded, where dissenting voices and positions were suppressed, with a
complete lack of accountability to presumed constituencies or "stakeholder"
groups,  and where the outcome was presented quite falsely as a "consensus"
document and output of the associated meeting.”

This is from UNESCO’s press release
<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/news-a
nd-in-focus-articles/all-news/news/a_multi_stakeholder_gathering_adopts_an_o
utcome_document_at_the_connecting_the_dots_conference/#.VPx8UuG2pq9>
concerning the Outcome Document “A multistakeholder group worked
continuously during the conference to synthesise several rounds of feedback
into an outcome document that could reflect the points of consensus. The
group suggested that a number of proposals to add more detail and additional
debates into the final Outcome Document, would be better reflected with the
study. Leading the multistakeholder group was Mr William Dutton, Quello
Professor, Michigan State University, who had earlier helped UNESCO to
synthesise the many responses and inputs into the draft study. … Other group
members, reflecting a range of constituencies, included Ms Albana Shala,
Chair of UNESCO’s International Programme for Development of Communication
(IPDC); Ms Chafica Haddad, Chair of UNESCO’s Information For All Programme
(IFAP); Mr Jānis Kārkliņš, Chair of Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)
for Internet Governance Forum; Ms Constance Bommelaer, Internet Society
(ISOC); Ms Ellen Blackler, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); Ms
Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communication (APC);  Ms
Rana Sabbagh, Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ) and Mr
Erick Iriarte, IALaw.” 

Yes, I think it is a very good idea to finally start discussing specifics.

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: March 8, 2015 9:27 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)

 

On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> 

> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800

> Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> 

>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it 

>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder 

>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!

> 

> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, like I 

> have given a link to my proposal? (  <http://WisdomTaskForce.org>
http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)

 

If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up on.  Start
at GigaNet ( <http://giga-net.org/> http://giga-net.org/).  For a less
academic, higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
NETmundial ( <http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs>
http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my own part, you're
already aware that seven years ago I published over 600 pages on how the IGF
could become a multi-stakeholder body that makes public policy
recommendations, and released it under Creative Commons at
<https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401->
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401- surely that counts if your
Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none of the current proposals for IANA
transition (eg.
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana
/>
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/
) count for anything?

 

If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good multi-stakeholder
processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started calling a "quality seal" of
multi-stakeholderism), rather than proposals that are specific to the IGF,
ICANN, etc. then you can expect news about another effort to produce
something like this in the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO
side-meeting that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming
soon and I'm not going to steal its thunder.

 

Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real point,
right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not satisfied with
what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend statist global governance,
which you don't accept is democratically legitimate.  So let's not muddy the
water with false issues.

 

I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it has been
going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be said between us
on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting to feel like I should
just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with a link to that.  For now, if
there is anything that you think you don't already have a response to, write
to me off list and I'll point you to it.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

 <https://eff.org> https://eff.org

 <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

Public key:  <https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt>
https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

 

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR
fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

 

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:

 <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/685fb7fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun Mar  8 14:04:59 2015
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 19:04:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54FC8F4B.9070901@wzb.eu>




> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus
> on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with
> about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to
> democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people
> playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the
> middle of that whole thing, no)?

Yes, I was, and I am proud of that.
What I meant to say: Language games played an important role during the 
intergovernmental negotiation of the WSIS documents. Those with access 
to the working groups could marvel about these skillful diplomatic 
maneuvers that could only be deciphered by those who knew the historic 
subtext of certain wordings. Civil society did not engage in those plays 
with words. In endless meetings we discussed specific proposals, among 
them the merits of a new multi-stakeholder forum that would address 
internet governance issues.

Sometimes implicit but often enough very explicit, we fought for making 
the regulation of the Internet a more democratic endevaour. The 
multi-stakeholder concept was our entry ticket into the dialogue with 
governments but it was also our approach towards democratizing the 
global management of the internet.

Multi-stakeholder was never meant to be separate or even the opposite of 
democracy. On the contrary, it has been the attempt to expand the 
democratic idea, which clearly has been optimized and operationalized 
for the nation state and thus has not  much to offer for the global 
sphere. There is so much to do, there is so much to experiment and 
learn, in my view it is misguided to frame the current state of things 
as a binary choice between democracy and multi-stakeholderism. I don't 
see how one concept could thrive without the other in the Internet world.

Right now, it is an open and contested question among civil society 
groups what democracy on the global level means. Unless we agree on a 
set of basic principles, it may be impossible to use this term in 
official documents. Avoiding this term does not imply that any of us 
consider democracy less relevant than those who want to see it included.

Jeanette

Jeanette





Why this gratuitous advice that dont
> mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes
> into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.
>
> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at
> the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term
> 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the
> whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been
> strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it
> not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner
> about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest
> consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on
> what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very
> clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> This discussion is bizarr.
>>
>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on
>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
>> advocating for a long time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
>> US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient
>> comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
>> either in theory or in practice.
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>>
>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
>> needs to be developed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
>> not taken up at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
>> international documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but
>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>> M
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>
>>> [<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>>
>>> Klein
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>> To:<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>>> (<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>  wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> wrote:
>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>>> partly included."
>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>>> partially, included.
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Norbert Klein
>>> Cambodia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Mar  8 14:38:59 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:38:59 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FC8F4B.9070901@wzb.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> <54FC8F4B.9070901@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <0b3c01d059cf$24f2ab10$6ed80130$@gmail.com>

For anyone who believes that the on-going effort by the USG and its corporate and other allies to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from "democracy" to multistakeholderism is simply "about  words", I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like you to take a look at and put offer on.

"Words"/concepts/norms translate into and consciously and unconsciously frame actions; provide the design parameters for operational mechanisms and institutions; and in a variety of other ways turn themselves into reality, often without our even being aware of those processes--that's the point of words. 

Democracy representing "red lines" that countries like the US won't cross as per what was observed at the UNESCO meeting, and "multistakeholderism" (i.e. governance by self-selected and primarily corporate driven elites) being the widely pursued alternative is about a conscious strategy of changing the aspirational mechanisms of global governance, and not just in the Internet sphere.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: March 8, 2015 11:05 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"




> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus 
> on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with 
> about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to 
> democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people 
> playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the 
> middle of that whole thing, no)?

Yes, I was, and I am proud of that.
What I meant to say: Language games played an important role during the intergovernmental negotiation of the WSIS documents. Those with access to the working groups could marvel about these skillful diplomatic maneuvers that could only be deciphered by those who knew the historic subtext of certain wordings. Civil society did not engage in those plays with words. In endless meetings we discussed specific proposals, among them the merits of a new multi-stakeholder forum that would address internet governance issues.

Sometimes implicit but often enough very explicit, we fought for making the regulation of the Internet a more democratic endevaour. The multi-stakeholder concept was our entry ticket into the dialogue with governments but it was also our approach towards democratizing the global management of the internet.

Multi-stakeholder was never meant to be separate or even the opposite of democracy. On the contrary, it has been the attempt to expand the democratic idea, which clearly has been optimized and operationalized for the nation state and thus has not  much to offer for the global sphere. There is so much to do, there is so much to experiment and learn, in my view it is misguided to frame the current state of things as a binary choice between democracy and multi-stakeholderism. I don't see how one concept could thrive without the other in the Internet world.

Right now, it is an open and contested question among civil society groups what democracy on the global level means. Unless we agree on a set of basic principles, it may be impossible to use this term in official documents. Avoiding this term does not imply that any of us consider democracy less relevant than those who want to see it included.

Jeanette

Jeanette





Why this gratuitous advice that dont
> mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word 
> goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.
>
> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said 
> at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the 
> term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, 
> the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been 
> strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it 
> not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar 
> manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest 
> consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on 
> what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very 
> clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> This discussion is bizarr.
>>
>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding 
>> and role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a 
>> consensus on how to effectively operationalize democracy in the 
>> context of the Internet something with which I (and the JNC) 
>> completely agree and which we have been advocating for a long time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus 
>> on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working 
>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the 
>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental 
>> pillar of US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could 
>> have sufficient comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for 
>> multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates 
>> acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and 
>> lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice.
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) 
>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>>
>>
>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic 
>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an 
>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view 
>> still needs to be developed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to 
>> include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept 
>> supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in 
>> the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the 
>> UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the 
>> concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware 
>> that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, 
>> I have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware 
>> that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, 
>> take the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the 
>> Democratic Republic of Congo
>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good 
>> to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in 
>> the context of the internet among civil society and academia first 
>> before forcing it into international documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < 
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a 
>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but 
>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to 
>>> promote "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>> M
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>
>>> [<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>>
>>> Klein
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>> To:<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang 
>>> (<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>  
>>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> wrote:
>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting 
>>>> the
>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important 
>>>> to put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was 
>>>> to give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on 
>>>> the future priorities in this field. This was done in several 
>>>> plenary and
>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into 
>>>> the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all 
>>>> work in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or 
>>>> only partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts 
>>>> were elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any significant 
>>>> way in order to deepen their understanding.
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only 
>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or 
>>> only partly included."
>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar 
>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would 
>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, 
>>> could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or 
>>> only partially, included.
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Norbert Klein
>>> Cambodia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sun Mar  8 17:34:26 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:34:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <14bfa05b508.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC21!
 89.601000
 0@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <8B99A046-8DB9-481E-AB7E-FC501F9FFE88@theglobaljournal.net> <14bfa05b508.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <B19C6215-24F7-4F7E-8B03-2422E03B8047@theglobaljournal.net>

Suresh,

One question between you and me : are you that familiar with such animal as you sound expert with caqueting and trolling.  I just realize we have a lot more to learn from you. Such a cute little animal indeed, with only one leg, one eye, one key idea : the world is divided in multi-stakeholderism - or should we call it expanded democracy as Jeanette defines it- and Multi-la-lateralism. Any strabismus issue? Does this animal still have a brain, unless it doesn't need it anymore? We'll keep this for the off-line humor chat-room and our MSist freak show.

Thanks for your insight and reflection.

JC



Le 8 mars 2015 à 16:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :

> Amazing. A third way that still works out in favor of the multilateral advocates
> 
> If it walks like a multilateral duck, if it quacks like a multilateral duck.. 
> On March 8, 2015 9:01:14 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 
>>> The merits of democracy are not being argued (GREAT NEWS!!) here as much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles.
>>> 
>> Solely? No. This is solely your assumption.
>> In a multilateral context? No, wrong again. One problem that do have MSists is their dear denial of any role to governments. MSits favorite sport is governmental bashing (except for USG, the good guy of their story).
>> In UN circles. No. Most of its use happens outside the UN, in civil life.
>> 
>>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.  
>>> 
>> 
>> Would it be "through consensus" democracies would have gone no way. A majority, made by honest voting in a clear constitutional framework, can only exercise the will of the people. A consensus can be a good warning paving the way to a new collective rule, still a vote might often turn it into something that will be respected, transparent and accountable. Consensus is a very vague process, easily flawed. Rough consensus is even worse. Again governance is no to be built on techies's philosophy of daily practice. Consensus related to governance fits to capos and rubber barons. Not to public policy making (which is where we do have a fight).
>> 
>>> The question here is what political significance will get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Especially when its very existence is denied by MSits who, amusingly, claimed to be MSits for the sake of democracy. MSits know better what the people need.
>> 
>> No, JNC is not favoring Multilateral governance. This another assumption is a lie. JNC is advocating a third way. Most MSists are bodyguards to the status-quo. We see it in any list, any venue. We have seen it again during the connecting the dots, or the Dotting the I's, as Louis Pouzin put it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 8 mars 2015 à 14:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>> 
>>> The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles.
>>> 
>>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.  The question here is what political significance will get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. 
>>> 
>>> On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand athttp://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions that grew out of technical work on making the internet.
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s
>>>> 
>>>> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a social and political program".
>>>> 
>>>> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance?
>>>> 
>>>> Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of connected dots?
>>>> 
>>>> //Erik
>>>> 
>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
>>>> Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits
>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>> 
>>>> And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is happening quite fine?)
>>>> 
>>>> If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal footing,  in Internet-related global policy decision making -  that is enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple democratic principles and ideals. 
>>>> 
>>>> Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are evident here, which so many find so unsightly?
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back immediately on that.
>>>> 
>>>> Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we will be making progress. 
>>>> 
>>>> parminder  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and  some other emails of a similar kind.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the circularity with some specifics.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in IG docs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> discussion is bizarr.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
>>>>>> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity
>>>>>> building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they
>>>>>> communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a
>>>>>> "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal
>>>>>> partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and
>>>>>> options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded
>>>>>> from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement
>>>>>> on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with
>>>>>> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the
>>>>>> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making
>>>>>> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and
>>>>>> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
>>>>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive
>>>>>> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states
>>>>>> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on
>>>>>> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders.
>>>>>> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move
>>>>>> forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting
>>>>>> model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
>>>>>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a
>>>>>> consensus on
>>>>>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
>>>>>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
>>>>>> advocating for a long time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
>>>>>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my
>>>>>> quotes from Mr.
>>>>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
>>>>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
>>>>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
>>>>>> US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have
>>>>>> sufficient
>>>>>> comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
>>>>>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
>>>>>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
>>>>>> either in theory or in practice.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> M
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] 
>>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>>>>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
>>>>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
>>>>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
>>>>>> needs to be developed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
>>>>>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
>>>>>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
>>>>>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
>>>>>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
>>>>>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
>>>>>> not taken up at all.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
>>>>>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
>>>>>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
>>>>>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
>>>>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
>>>>>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
>>>>>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
>>>>>> international documents.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>>>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of
>>>>>>> "democracy"  it wasn't
>>>>>>> simply a 
>>>>>>> matter of the concept
>>>>>>> "not making it into the final
>>>>>>> document" but 
>>>>>>> rather that those involved
>>>>>>> made the clear political choice to promote 
>>>>>>> "multistakeholderism" and
>>>>>>> suppress "democracy".
>>>>>>> M
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf
>>>>>> Of Norbert 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Klein
>>>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>>>>>> To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance]
>>>>>>> [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony 
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30
>>>>>>> PM, Benedek, Wolfgang 
>>>>>>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>> a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>>>>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is
>>>>>>>> important to 
>>>>>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the
>>>>>>>> conference was to 
>>>>>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and
>>>>>>>> advise on the 
>>>>>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several
>>>>>>>> plenary and
>>>>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make
>>>>>>>> it into the 
>>>>>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is
>>>>>>>> all work in 
>>>>>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>>>>>> only partly 
>>>>>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were
>>>>>>>> elaborated 
>>>>>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in
>>>>>>>> order to 
>>>>>>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only 
>>>>>>> formalities like
>>>>>>> "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>>>>> only 
>>>>>>> partly included."
>>>>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a
>>>>>>> similar 
>>>>>>> importance and weight could
>>>>>>> be lined up with "democracy." I
>>>>>>> would 
>>>>>>> appreciate it if you, as a
>>>>>>> participant in this UNESCO conference, could 
>>>>>>> share some of these
>>>>>>> "other concepts" which were also not, or
>>>>>>> only 
>>>>>>> partially, included.
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>> Norbert Klein
>>>>>>> Cambodia
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To 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
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/97534a9e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Mon Mar  9 04:08:46 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:08:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54FC8F4B.9070901@wzb.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> <54FC8F4B.9070901@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <D1231385.7279D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

+1 Jeannette

Wolfgang Benedek







Am 08.03.15 19:04 schrieb "Jeanette Hofmann" unter <jeanette at wzb.eu>:

>
>
>
>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus
>> on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with
>> about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to
>> democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people
>> playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the
>> middle of that whole thing, no)?
>
>Yes, I was, and I am proud of that.
>What I meant to say: Language games played an important role during the
>intergovernmental negotiation of the WSIS documents. Those with access
>to the working groups could marvel about these skillful diplomatic
>maneuvers that could only be deciphered by those who knew the historic
>subtext of certain wordings. Civil society did not engage in those plays
>with words. In endless meetings we discussed specific proposals, among
>them the merits of a new multi-stakeholder forum that would address
>internet governance issues.
>
>Sometimes implicit but often enough very explicit, we fought for making
>the regulation of the Internet a more democratic endevaour. The
>multi-stakeholder concept was our entry ticket into the dialogue with
>governments but it was also our approach towards democratizing the
>global management of the internet.
>
>Multi-stakeholder was never meant to be separate or even the opposite of
>democracy. On the contrary, it has been the attempt to expand the
>democratic idea, which clearly has been optimized and operationalized
>for the nation state and thus has not  much to offer for the global
>sphere. There is so much to do, there is so much to experiment and
>learn, in my view it is misguided to frame the current state of things
>as a binary choice between democracy and multi-stakeholderism. I don't
>see how one concept could thrive without the other in the Internet world.
>
>Right now, it is an open and contested question among civil society
>groups what democracy on the global level means. Unless we agree on a
>set of basic principles, it may be impossible to use this term in
>official documents. Avoiding this term does not imply that any of us
>consider democracy less relevant than those who want to see it included.
>
>Jeanette
>
>Jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
>Why this gratuitous advice that dont
>> mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes
>> into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.
>>
>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at
>> the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term
>> 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the
>> whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been
>> strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it
>> not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner
>> about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest
>> consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on
>> what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very
>> clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>> This discussion is bizarr.
>>>
>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
>>>infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education,
>>>capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve
>>>more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders.
>>>Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal
>>>partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities
>>>and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from
>>>final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement
>>>on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs"
>>>I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para.
>>>34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para.
>>>35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for
>>>international Internet-related public policy issues".
>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights".
>>>With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their
>>>governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related
>>>public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to
>>>achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by
>>>being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model.
>>>More forward looking Innovation is needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding
>>>and
>>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a
>>>consensus on
>>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the
>>>Internet
>>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we
>>>have been
>>> advocating for a long time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus
>>>on the
>>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes
>>>from Mr.
>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental
>>>pillar of
>>> US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have
>>>sufficient
>>> comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for
>>>multistakeholderism,
>>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
>>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent
>>>definition
>>> either in theory or in practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>>Ceremony of
>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view
>>>still
>>> needs to be developed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
>>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported
>>>by the
>>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational
>>>sector
>>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve
>>>ethical
>>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without
>>>any
>>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others
>>>were
>>> not taken up at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions,
>>>I have
>>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the
>>>concept
>>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples
>>>of
>>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of
>>>Congo
>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to
>>>work
>>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the
>>>context of
>>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it
>>>into
>>> international documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but
>>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote
>>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>>> M
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>
>>>> [<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>>>
>>>> Klein
>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>>> To:<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>>>Ceremony
>>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>>>> (<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>  wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to
>>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to
>>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the
>>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and
>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the
>>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in
>>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly
>>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated
>>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to
>>>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>>>> partly included."
>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference,
>>>>could
>>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only
>>>> partially, included.
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Norbert Klein
>>>> Cambodia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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 dave at difference.com.au  Mon Mar  9 04:16:17 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>


On 5 Mar 2015, at 5:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thursday 05 March 2015 02:05 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> 
>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:39 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> .The fact that some  'civil society' persons sided with US and its allies (who as the key power-holders in the global IG realm have their obvious reasons) to do so indeed makes it a sad day for public interest advocacy.... parminder
>> 
>>  I really find some civil society persons siding with Russia and the KSA on some issues to be a bigger long term concern for support of democracy within civil society, but perhaps that is just me.
> 
> David, I am more that ready for an honest debate, but here you are cutting some part of an email and making an unconnected case out of it. The main point in my email was not 'siding with US' but 'siding with US to resist inclusion of 'democracy' in the UNESCO document', which I indeed consider nothing less than scandalous . Now, on the 'democracy' part, if you have any views please share them, and if any questions, I am happy to answer.

	Sure.
	Leaving aside the symbolic value of democracy as a word, much of the debate here seems to be about the practical implications of including it as a descriptor of multi-stakeholder processes. What practical differences to the governance of Internet governance institutions, current or potential, do you believe would be made by the inclusion of the word democratic? I’d be interested to hear either positive (properties such institutions should have) or negative (properties they should not have).
	If this is merely a debate about the form of words, then I don’t think could be considered that scandalous. Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.


> I do not know what and whom you refer to in talking about siding with Russia (will you like to be explicit). Meanwhile, I will greatly protest anyone siding with Russia to condone, say violence against journalists, or arbitrarily shutting down websites - both of which happen a lot in Russia.

	Certainly. Russia is a terrible nation for free press, has used DDOS and other similar tactics for suppression of political speech in the past, and also practices shutdowns.
	It is also worth noting, given the apparent JNC drive for CS groups to disclose funding that in my cases it would cause significant problems for CS organisations operating in Russia, given that Russia has passed laws characterising CS organisations that receive foreign funding as ‘foreign agents' (though Russia is also increasingly a source of CS funding for causes like anti-abortion and anti-LGBT campaigns).

> However, Id be happy to side with Russia to resist US and its corporation's hegemony over the global Internet.

	In which way do you think that this would NOT increase the influence of relatively un-democratic nations such as Russia and China? In which way do you think reducing the influence of the US would not amount to less influence of a democratic power?
	FWIW, I’m all for decreasing the direct power of the US, and enthusiastically support the IANA transition and removing other ‘special roles’ of the US moving forward - but the JNC position seems to strongly advocate reduction of the soft power of the US and its allies as well, which in the current geopolitical climate inevitably means increasing the influence of authoritarian governments. I remain somewhat confused about the extreme JNC hostility to US soft power.

> Similarly, I'd very happily side with US on spreading globally its new found enthusiasm for net neutrality and community broadband as national level best practices.

	Indeed, we are in agreement there.

	David

> 
> parminder
>> 
>>  Regards
>> 
>>  David
>>>> 
>>>> M
>>>> 
>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Sent: March 4, 2015 7:42 AM
>>>> To: Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna Nwakanma;<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of civil society.  This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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 ::
>>>> 
>>>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>>>> 
>>>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>>>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>>>> 
>>>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>>>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/7418a624/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Mar  9 04:32:17 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
 at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)
In-Reply-To: <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>

For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that those 
general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of written
words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it is true
that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related text which is
mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*) perspectives:


The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that

1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting it
as a JNC position, and

2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and

3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for addressing
the challenges of developing *global* public policy, without overlooking
the fact that it is not always possible to reach consensus.


Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
(particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"


Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of concrete
proposals on a significant number of topics.

So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
*global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
always possible to reach consensus.


I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
it is not always possible to reach consensus.

(In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders
should be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in
contrast to purely technical matters where the disagreements are about
questions of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
solution?")


I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
the discourse has been moved forward a bit.


By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the discussion
without concretely discussing concrete proposals in relation to this
important question would probably indeed result in going around in
circles.

By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a vast
body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics. And I
would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it as easy
to answer it in a satisfactory way.

Greetings,
Norbert


(*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the distinction
between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy viewpoints, and in
which I will solicit comments on that description of this distinction.



On Sun, 8 Mar
2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
> > Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> >> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
> >> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!
> > 
> > Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, like
> > I have given a link to my proposal? ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
> 
> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to NETmundial
> (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my own part,
> you're already aware that seven years ago I published over 600 pages
> on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body that makes
> public policy recommendations, and released it under Creative Commons
> at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401- surely that counts
> if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none of the current
> proposals for IANA transition (eg.
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/)
> count for anything?
> 
> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
> 
> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
> legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
> 
> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
> has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be
> said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting
> to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with
> a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you think you
> don't already have a response to, write to me off list and I'll point
> you to it.
> 


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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Mar  9 05:38:41 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:38:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
Message-ID: <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>

Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:

a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.

b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
multistakeholderism.

From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.

Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
consensus text along those lines.

As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.

I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
"pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
viewpoints of both sides.

Greetings,
Norbert


On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
> perspectives:
> 
> 
> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
> 
> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
> it as a JNC position, and
> 
> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
> 
> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
> consensus.
> 
> 
> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
> 
> 
> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of concrete
> proposals on a significant number of topics.
> 
> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
> always possible to reach consensus.
> 
> 
> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
> 
> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders
> should be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in
> contrast to purely technical matters where the disagreements are about
> questions of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
> solution?")
> 
> 
> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
> 
> 
> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
> going around in circles.
> 
> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a vast
> body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics. And I
> would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it as easy
> to answer it in a satisfactory way.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
> of this distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 8 Mar
> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> > >> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
> > >> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
> > >> proposals than you do!
> > > 
> > > Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
> > > like I have given a link to my proposal?
> > > ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
> > 
> > If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
> > on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
> > higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
> > NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
> > own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
> > over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
> > that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
> > Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
> > surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
> > of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
> > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/)
> > count for anything?
> > 
> > If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
> > multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
> > calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
> > proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
> > expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
> > the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
> > that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
> > and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
> > 
> > Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
> > point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
> > satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
> > statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
> > legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
> > 
> > I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
> > has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be
> > said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting
> > to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with
> > a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you think you
> > don't already have a response to, write to me off list and I'll
> > point you to it.
> > 
> 
> 


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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar  9 06:20:11 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:50:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
Message-ID: <77D6C172-5321-4CD7-9740-E67EA74A9060@hserus.net>

That definition below would imply that multistakeholderist opinions or processes are not democratic.  If you do believe that, be so good as to state it along with a definition of what you consider democracy.

--srs (iPad)

> On 09-Mar-2015, at 15:08, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
> divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
> Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
> 
> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
> it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
> which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
> democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
> multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
> 
> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
> Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
> involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
> governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
> necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
> principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
> having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
> multistakeholderism.
> 
> From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
> Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
> 
> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
> those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
> and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
> had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
> government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
> from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
> consensus text along those lines.
> 
> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
> 
> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
> "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
> written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
> viewpoints of both sides.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
>> perspectives:
>> 
>> 
>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
>> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
>> 
>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
>> it as a JNC position, and
>> 
>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
>> 
>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
>> consensus.
>> 
>> 
>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
>> 
>> 
>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of concrete
>> proposals on a significant number of topics.
>> 
>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
>> always possible to reach consensus.
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
>> 
>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders
>> should be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in
>> contrast to purely technical matters where the disagreements are about
>> questions of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
>> solution?")
>> 
>> 
>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
>> 
>> 
>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
>> going around in circles.
>> 
>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a vast
>> body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics. And I
>> would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it as easy
>> to answer it in a satisfactory way.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
>> of this distinction.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, 8 Mar
>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
>>>>> proposals than you do!
>>>> 
>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
>>>> ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
>>> 
>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
>>> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
>>> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
>>> NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
>>> own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
>>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
>>> that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
>>> Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/)
>>> count for anything?
>>> 
>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
>>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
>>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
>>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
>>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
>>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
>>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
>>> legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
>>> 
>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
>>> has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be
>>> said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting
>>> to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with
>>> a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you think you
>>> don't already have a response to, write to me off list and I'll
>>> point you to it.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Mon Mar  9 06:36:01 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:36:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
	<54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
	<04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
	<54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
	<092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
	<54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>
	<54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net>
	<4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <20150309113601.06103a88@quill>

On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 13:08:51 +0000
JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:

> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I
> think the underlying understanding is congruent with what
> Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently
> gave in New Zealand at http://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to
> the part where transparency, participation and non-hierarchical
> collaboration is described as conditions that grew out of technical
> work on making the internet.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s
> 
> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of
> transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they
> are themselves a social and political program".
> 
> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet
> governance?

I would agree that that "social and political program" is certainly a
program of Internet governance (or more accurately, Information
society governance, since it's broader that just about the Internet).
I also happen to largely agree to that set of ideas, and in fact my
proposal at WisdomTaskForce.org is in fact to a large extent based on
that kind of ideas.

However I would insist that there are Internet governance issues which
require explicit legislative public policy action in addition to what
Eben Moglen describes as the "social and political program" that he is
endorsing. For a bit of discussion of this in relation to the issue of
mass surveillance, see my blogpost "The Internet Social Forum and a
Vision for Actually Achieving The Internet That We Want" at
http://sustainability.oriented.systems/isf-vision/ .

It isn't clear to me whether from the perspective of Eben Moglen's
"social and political program", such democratic legislative action
would be seen as appropriate or not.

If democratic legislative action to resolve conflicts of interest
between the general public and particular interests of corporations,
and/or the interests of the surveillance/industrial complex (by
resolving these conflicts of interest in favor of the public interest
on the basis of human rights) is not accepted as appropriate, then I
would not not accept such a "social and political program", nor see it
as pro-democratic, no matter what good and desirable aspects it might
otherwise have.

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.benedek at uni-graz.at  Mon Mar  9 06:44:20 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:44:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
 <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
 <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
 <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
 <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
Message-ID: <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Dear Norbert,

I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the
discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on
multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that
the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and
sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of
information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the
results. One could also argue as more democratic the  relationship as
better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do
not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based
and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be
democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than
beneficiaries. 

Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of
power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the
results to be achieved.This includes demystifying concepts like
"partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent
about the objectives of the different partners.

To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to
the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state
level among citizens. We also have for many years a discussion on
"democratization" of international economic organizations, which mainly
means more participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can
improve the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further
democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will
depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced
of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.

Wolfgang Benedek







Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:

>Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
>divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
>Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
>
>a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
>elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
>it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
>which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
>democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
>multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
>
>b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
>Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
>involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
>governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
>necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
>principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
>having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
>multistakeholderism.
>
>From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
>hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
>pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
>Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
>
>Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
>those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
>and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
>had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
>government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
>from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
>consensus text along those lines.
>
>As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
>
>I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
>"pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
>written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
>viewpoints of both sides.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
>Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
>> perspectives:
>> 
>> 
>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
>> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
>> 
>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
>> it as a JNC position, and
>> 
>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
>> 
>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
>> consensus.
>> 
>> 
>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
>> 
>> 
>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of concrete
>> proposals on a significant number of topics.
>> 
>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
>> always possible to reach consensus.
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
>> 
>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders
>> should be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in
>> contrast to purely technical matters where the disagreements are about
>> questions of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
>> solution?")
>> 
>> 
>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
>> 
>> 
>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
>> going around in circles.
>> 
>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a vast
>> body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics. And I
>> would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it as easy
>> to answer it in a satisfactory way.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
>> of this distinction.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, 8 Mar
>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
>> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > >> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>> > >> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
>> > >> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
>> > >> proposals than you do!
>> > > 
>> > > Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
>> > > like I have given a link to my proposal?
>> > > ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
>> > 
>> > If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
>> > on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
>> > higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
>> > NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
>> > own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
>> > over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
>> > that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
>> > Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
>> > surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
>> > of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
>> > 
>>http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-ia
>>na/)
>> > count for anything?
>> > 
>> > If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
>> > multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
>> > calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
>> > proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
>> > expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
>> > the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
>> > that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
>> > and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
>> > 
>> > Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
>> > point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
>> > satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
>> > statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
>> > legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
>> > 
>> > I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
>> > has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be
>> > said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting
>> > to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with
>> > a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you think you
>> > don't already have a response to, write to me off list and I'll
>> > point you to it.
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>
>


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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Mar  9 06:54:38 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:54:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
	<54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
	<7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
	<54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
	<38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of
> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything
> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in,
> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law enforcement
> that governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC
> denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation
> of what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.

I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post about
this when it is available.

In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting on
what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the context of
the very interesting way in which this word is used in Article 29 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

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.benedek at uni-graz.at  Mon Mar  9 07:12:42 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
 <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
 <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
 <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
 <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
 <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
Message-ID: <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Dear Nobert,

on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR and
the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in Article 21
of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the ICCPR, which speak
of participation in government of one's country, periodic elections etc
The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be
restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic society. As
the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no authoritative
interpretation of this phrase by an international human rights body to my
knowledge.

However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, the
European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing social need"
for restrictions which are possible based on the similar limitation clause
"necessary in a democratic society". More and examples in my book with
Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression and the Internet, Council of
Europe 2014.

Wolfgang Benedek






Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:

>On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of
>> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything
>> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in,
>> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law enforcement
>> that governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC
>> denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation
>> of what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
>
>I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
>position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post about
>this when it is available.
>
>In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting on
>what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the context of
>the very interesting way in which this word is used in Article 29 of the
>Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>
>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 nb at bollow.ch  Mon Mar  9 07:55:43 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:55:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <77D6C172-5321-4CD7-9740-E67EA74A9060@hserus.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
	<20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
	<77D6C172-5321-4CD7-9740-E67EA74A9060@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20150309125543.26a5fab5@quill>

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:50:11 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> That definition below would imply that multistakeholderist opinions
> or processes are not democratic.

No, I don't believe that to be necessarily the case. It also wasn't me,
or anyone from JNC, who insisted in Paris that "democratic" and
"multistakeholder" cannot be put into the same sentence.

I sincerely believe that a consensus is possible between those who hold
pro-multistakeholderist views and those who hold pro-democracy views.
Such a consensus would be based on establishing the processes of
Internet governance in a way that is at the same time democratic and
multistakeholder (which happens to be what the NETmundial outcome
document calls for). There is nothing in the definitions below that
would prevent anyone (whose views are part of either of these
categories) from agreeing to processes which are at the same time
democratic and multistakeholder.

In other words, I believe that although the failed consensus process in
Paris allows to achieve a good characterization of the split which
exists in civil society, this split will not necessarily prevent the
possibility of reaching consensus in the future.

The main question which I'm asking is about the accuracy and fairness
of my characterization of those who view themselves as being
"pro-multistakeholder" (which is a term that is contained in a recent
posting of Jeremy, I didn't invent it) with the words: "Elevating a
principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and it fact
giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status which is
ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be democratic.
This is often done by insisting on the importance of multistakeholder
governance without mentioning democracy at all."

Another related question is whether it is appropriate to describe the
existing major split among Internet governance related civil society
groups as a two-way pro-X vs pro-Y split. If someone believes that the
picture isn't sufficiently complete without introducing one or more
further categories of viewpoints, I would suggest that now would be a
good time to speak up and describe any further proposed categories of
viewpoints. 

Greetings,
Norbert


> > On 09-Mar-2015, at 15:08, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a
> > significant divide which is in existence within civil society in
> > relation to Internet governance can be characterized appropriately
> > as follows:
> > 
> > a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
> > elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status,
> > and it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the
> > status which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance
> > must be democratic. This is often done by insisting on the
> > importance of multistakeholder governance without mentioning
> > democracy at all.
> > 
> > b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting
> > that Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy
> > viewpoints may involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes
> > for Internet governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy
> > viewpoints would necessarily agree in any way with
> > multistakeholderism), but the principle that governance must be
> > democratic would always be seen as having greater importance and a
> > higher priority than any endorsement of multistakeholderism.
> > 
> > From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those
> > who hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
> > pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
> > Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as
> > democratic.
> > 
> > Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some
> > of those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically,
> > Jeremy and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other
> > countries who had instructions from their governments to support
> > positions of the US government in relation to multistakeholderism
> > upon any such request from the US delegation) were unwilling to
> > agree to any kind of consensus text along those lines.
> > 
> > As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
> > 
> > I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization
> > of "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I
> > have written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
> > viewpoints of both sides.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
> > Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> >> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
> >> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
> >> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
> >> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
> >> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if
> >> it is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance
> >> related text which is mostly written from
> >> pro-multistakeholderist(*) perspectives:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link
> >> to my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
> >> 
> >> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't
> >> posting it as a JNC position, and
> >> 
> >> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
> >> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published,
> >> and
> >> 
> >> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
> >> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
> >> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to
> >> reach consensus.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following
> >> exact words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for
> >> which it (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
> >> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
> >> proposals than you do!"
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of
> >> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.
> >> 
> >> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete
> >> proposals" was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge
> >> of developing *global* public policy without overlooking the fact
> >> that it is not always possible to reach consensus.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
> >> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to
> >> proposals for generally addressing the challenge of developing
> >> *global* public policy in relation to the Internet, without
> >> overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
> >> consensus.
> >> 
> >> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
> >> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
> >> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders
> >> should be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in
> >> contrast to purely technical matters where the disagreements are
> >> about questions of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a
> >> better solution?")
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going
> >> to agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is
> >> expressed, the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
> >> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
> >> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
> >> going around in circles.
> >> 
> >> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to
> >> essentially the same question as it being a "lean and mean
> >> question". I find that characterization quite fitting. I would say
> >> that it is a "lean" question because it cannot be addressed by
> >> means of pointing to a vast body of writings on a large number of
> >> somewhat related topics. And I would say that it is a "mean"
> >> question because I don't see it as easy to answer it in a
> >> satisfactory way.
> >> 
> >> Greetings,
> >> Norbert
> >> 
> >> 
> >> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll
> >> make another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
> >> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
> >> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that
> >> description of this distinction.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sun, 8 Mar
> >> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> >>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
> >>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
> >>>>> proposals than you do!
> >>>> 
> >>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
> >>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
> >>>> ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
> >>> 
> >>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
> >>> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less
> >>> academic, higher-level outline, also look through the submissions
> >>> to NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For
> >>> my own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
> >>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder
> >>> body that makes public policy recommendations, and released it
> >>> under Creative Commons at
> >>> https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401- surely that
> >>> counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none of the
> >>> current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
> >>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/)
> >>> count for anything?
> >>> 
> >>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
> >>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
> >>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
> >>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
> >>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
> >>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
> >>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
> >>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
> >>> 
> >>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
> >>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
> >>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
> >>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is
> >>> democratically legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with
> >>> false issues.
> >>> 
> >>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because
> >>> it has been going around in circles.  Everything that could
> >>> possibly be said between us on this topic, has been - many
> >>> times.  I'm starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and
> >>> reply to list mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is
> >>> anything that you think you don't already have a response to,
> >>> write to me off list and I'll point you to it.
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your 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 Mar  9 10:10:53 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 07:10:53 -0700
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>

I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very informed
commentary with most of which I agree...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek,
Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
viewpoints

 

Dear Norbert, 

 

I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the discussion
forward. I have done some research in the past on multistakeholder
partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that the quality of the
MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and sustainability. As larger the
asymmetrical relationship in terms of information, participation, political
power and funding as weaker the results. One could also argue as more
democratic the  relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is
the issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which each
cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in
resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have
more say than beneficiaries. 

 

[MG] agree

 

 

Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of
power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the
results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like
"partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent
about the objectives of the different partners.

 

[MG] agree

 

 

 

To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to the
relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state level
among citizens.

 

[MG] agree

 

 

We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of
international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations
of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the quality and the
acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my
view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in
its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more
equal participation for all stakeholders.

 

[MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that
there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the
IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there
was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a
comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing
that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a
devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion
through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.
Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was
still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative,
democratic institutions.

 

At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived
from and legitimated by the "will of the people" understood in its broadest
and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus
presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being
found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not
discussing how to achieve "further democratization" of existing institutions
but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for
institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned that
they would draw a red-line around "democracy" as a way of characterizing
those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong
preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to
above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.

 

M

 

 

 

Wolfgang Benedek

 

 

 
t

 

 

 

 

Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
nb at bollow.ch>:

 

>Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant 

>divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to 

>Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:

> 

>a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by 

>elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and 

>it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status 

>which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be 

>democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of 

>multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.

> 

>b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that 

>Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may 

>involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet 

>governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would 

>necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the 

>principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as 

>having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of 

>multistakeholderism.

> 

>From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who 

>hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a 

>pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for 

>Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.

> 

>Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of 

>those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy 

>and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who 

>had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US 

>government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request 

>from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of 

>consensus text along those lines.

> 

>As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.

> 

>I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of 

>"pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have 

>written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the 

>viewpoints of both sides.

> 

>Greetings,

>Norbert

> 

> 

>On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100

>Norbert Bollow < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> 

>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete 

>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't 

>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that 

>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of 

>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it 

>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related 

>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)

>> perspectives:

>> 

>> 

>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to 

>> my proposal  <http://WisdomTaskForce.org> http://WisdomTaskForce.org and
clarified that

>> 

>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting 

>> it as a JNC position, and

>> 

>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of 

>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and

>> 

>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for 

>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy, 

>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach 

>> consensus.

>> 

>> 

>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact

>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it 

>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder 

>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"

>> 

>> 

>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of 

>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.

>> 

>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"

>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing

>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not 

>> always possible to reach consensus.

>> 

>> 

>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I 

>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals 

>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public 

>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that 

>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.

>> 

>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean 

>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts 

>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should 

>> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to 

>> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions 

>> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better

>> solution?")

>> 

>> 

>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to 

>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed, 

>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.

>> 

>> 

>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the 

>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in 

>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in 

>> going around in circles.

>> 

>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially 

>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that 

>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"

>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a 

>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics. 

>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it 

>> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.

>> 

>> Greetings,

>> Norbert

>> 

>> 

>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make 

>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the 

>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy 

>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description 

>> of this distinction.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> On Sun, 8 Mar

>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

>> 

>> > On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>> > > 

>> > > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm 

>> > > < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

>> > > 

>> > >> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it 

>> > >> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the 

>> > >> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete 

>> > >> proposals than you do!

>> > > 

>> > > Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, 

>> > > like I have given a link to my proposal?

>> > > (  <http://WisdomTaskForce.org> http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)

>> > 

>> > If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up 

>> > on.  Start at GigaNet ( <http://giga-net.org/> http://giga-net.org/).
For a less academic, 

>> > higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to 

>> > NETmundial ( <http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs>
http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my 

>> > own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published 

>> > over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body 

>> > that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under 

>> > Creative Commons at  <https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401->
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-

>> > surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none 

>> > of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.

>> > 

>> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing>
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing

>>-ia

>>na/)

>> > count for anything?

>> > 

>> > If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good 

>> > multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started 

>> > calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than 

>> > proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can 

>> > expect news about another effort to produce something like this in 

>> > the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting 

>> > that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon 

>> > and I'm not going to steal its thunder.

>> > 

>> > Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real 

>> > point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not 

>> > satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend 

>> > statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically 

>> > legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.

>> > 

>> > I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it 

>> > has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly 

>> > be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm 

>> > starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list 

>> > mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you 

>> > think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list 

>> > and I'll point you to it.

>> > 

>> 

>> 

> 

> 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/b02483af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 10:30:05 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 07:30:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0f1901d05a75$89eb0a20$9dc11e60$@gmail.com>

I should add that as recent events in Greece and previously in much of the
Developing world make evident there are significant and fundamental
difficulties with the international financial institutions in that it is
quite clear that their ultimate objective is not the well-being of citizens
but rather to ensure the interests of a very narrow set of their
"stakeholders" particularly the international banks and those who derive
extraordinary benefits from their ownership and control.

 

M

 

From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: March 9, 2015 7:11 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Benedek, Wolfgang'; 'Norbert Bollow'
Subject: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
viewpoints

 

I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very informed
commentary with most of which I agree...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek,
Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
)
Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ;
Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
viewpoints

 

Dear Norbert, 

 

I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the discussion
forward. I have done some research in the past on multistakeholder
partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that the quality of the
MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and sustainability. As larger the
asymmetrical relationship in terms of information, participation, political
power and funding as weaker the results. One could also argue as more
democratic the  relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is
the issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which each
cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in
resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have
more say than beneficiaries. 

 

[MG] agree

 

 

Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of
power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the
results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like
"partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent
about the objectives of the different partners.

 

[MG] agree

 

 

 

To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to the
relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state level
among citizens.

 

[MG] agree

 

 

We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of
international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations
of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the quality and the
acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my
view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in
its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more
equal participation for all stakeholders.

 

[MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that
there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the
IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there
was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a
comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing
that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a
devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion
through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.
Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was
still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative,
democratic institutions.

 

At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived
from and legitimated by the "will of the people" understood in its broadest
and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus
presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being
found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not
discussing how to achieve "further democratization" of existing institutions
but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for
institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned that
they would draw a red-line around "democracy" as a way of characterizing
those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong
preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to
above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.

 

M

 

 

 

Wolfgang Benedek

 

 

 
t

 

 

 

 

Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
nb at bollow.ch>:

 

>Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant 

>divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to 

>Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:

> 

>a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by 

>elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and 

>it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status 

>which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be 

>democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of 

>multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.

> 

>b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that 

>Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may 

>involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet 

>governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would 

>necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the 

>principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as 

>having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of 

>multistakeholderism.

> 

>From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who 

>hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a 

>pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for 

>Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.

> 

>Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of 

>those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy 

>and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who 

>had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US 

>government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request 

>from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of 

>consensus text along those lines.

> 

>As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.

> 

>I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of 

>"pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have 

>written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the 

>viewpoints of both sides.

> 

>Greetings,

>Norbert

> 

> 

>On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100

>Norbert Bollow < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> 

>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete 

>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't 

>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that 

>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of 

>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it 

>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related 

>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)

>> perspectives:

>> 

>> 

>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to 

>> my proposal  <http://WisdomTaskForce.org> http://WisdomTaskForce.org and
clarified that

>> 

>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting 

>> it as a JNC position, and

>> 

>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of 

>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and

>> 

>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for 

>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy, 

>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach 

>> consensus.

>> 

>> 

>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact

>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it 

>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder 

>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"

>> 

>> 

>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of 

>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.

>> 

>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"

>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing

>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not 

>> always possible to reach consensus.

>> 

>> 

>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I 

>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals 

>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public 

>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that 

>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.

>> 

>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean 

>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts 

>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should 

>> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to 

>> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions 

>> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better

>> solution?")

>> 

>> 

>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to 

>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed, 

>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.

>> 

>> 

>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the 

>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in 

>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in 

>> going around in circles.

>> 

>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially 

>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that 

>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"

>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a 

>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics. 

>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it 

>> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.

>> 

>> Greetings,

>> Norbert

>> 

>> 

>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make 

>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the 

>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy 

>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description 

>> of this distinction.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> On Sun, 8 Mar

>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

>> 

>> > On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>> > > 

>> > > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm 

>> > > < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

>> > > 

>> > >> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it 

>> > >> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the 

>> > >> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete 

>> > >> proposals than you do!

>> > > 

>> > > Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, 

>> > > like I have given a link to my proposal?

>> > > (  <http://WisdomTaskForce.org> http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)

>> > 

>> > If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up 

>> > on.  Start at GigaNet ( <http://giga-net.org/> http://giga-net.org/).
For a less academic, 

>> > higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to 

>> > NETmundial ( <http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs>
http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my 

>> > own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published 

>> > over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body 

>> > that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under 

>> > Creative Commons at  <https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401->
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-

>> > surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none 

>> > of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.

>> > 

>> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing>
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing

>>-ia

>>na/)

>> > count for anything?

>> > 

>> > If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good 

>> > multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started 

>> > calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than 

>> > proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can 

>> > expect news about another effort to produce something like this in 

>> > the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting 

>> > that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon 

>> > and I'm not going to steal its thunder.

>> > 

>> > Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real 

>> > point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not 

>> > satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend 

>> > statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically 

>> > legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.

>> > 

>> > I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it 

>> > has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly 

>> > be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm 

>> > starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list 

>> > mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you 

>> > think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list 

>> > and I'll point you to it.

>> > 

>> 

>> 

> 

> 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/c29b9d1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Mar  9 10:40:39 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:40:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
	<54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
	<7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
	<54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
	<38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
	<20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
	<D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <20150309154039.3f510466@quill>

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
"Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
<wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:

> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR
> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in
> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the
> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country,
> periodic elections etc

Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in
relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not
used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its
government democratic is spelled out explicitly.

> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR
> states that rights can be restricted for the sake of the general
> welfare in a democratic society. As the UDHR is not a binding
> convention there is no authoritative interpretation of this phrase by
> an international human rights body to my knowledge.

Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word
"democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say,
certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights
instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14,
Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.

Greetings,
Norbert

> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,
> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing
> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar
> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and
> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression
> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
> 
> Wolfgang Benedek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
> 
> >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
> >David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of
> >> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything
> >> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in,
> >> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law
> >> enforcement that governments have a special role intrinsically by
> >> law). JNC denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your
> >> interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you
> >> discuss would mean.
> >
> >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
> >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
> >about this when it is available.
> >
> >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting
> >on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the
> >context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in
> >Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> >
> >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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 10:53:26 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:53:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] Fellowship opportunity in FGV Rio de Janeiro
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1EK33G6ZKr2TPmDgSC0HWcwrcrBafOwVX=K97L9jO1fQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

FGV´s Rio de Janeiro Law School is offering an excellent fellowship
opportunity. Researchers working in fields related to regulation and
technology can develop their work at the Center for Technology and Society
of FGV.

Please help to disseminate among your contacts.

Best wishes,
Marília


Fellows in Rio 2015-2016

Fundação Getulio Vargas’ Rio de Janeiro Law School – FGV DIREITO RIO is
pleased to announce the second edition of the Fellows in Rio program. The
goal of the program is to support a select group of highly qualified
doctoral and post-doctoral scholars working in areas related to the
School’s research centers. The program seeks to offer economic and
intellectual resources to support insightful and promising young legal
scholars.

The fellows will participate in projects at the school’s research centers,
along with developing their own research. They will receive a six-month
scholarship, in the amount of R$36,000.00* for doctoral students and
R$45,000.00** for doctors. They will also have the opportunity to give
short courses to students, and participate in workshops with researchers
and professors.

In the first edition, FGV Direito Rio received 162 applications, from 24
countries – 99 doctoral students and 62 doctors. Among the candidates were
masters and doctors from Brazilian universities such as USP, UNB, UERJ UFPR
UFBA, PUC-Rio, PUC-MG, and from international universities, such as
Harvard, Yale and NYU (United States), SciencesPo Sorbonne (France),
Sapienza, Bocconi and European University Institute (Italy), London School
of Economics and Oxford University (England), Hamburg University,
Heidelberg and Augsburg (Germany), Tilburg University (Netherlands), Jindal
University (India), Universidad Austral (Argentina), among others.

Up to eight (8) fellowships will be granted: four (4) for the period
between the beginning of August 2015 to the end of December 2015, and four
(4) for the period between the beginning of February 2016 to the end of
July 2016. The deadline for applications is on April 15th 2015 (check the
call for applications for further information).
Call for applications:
http://direitorio.fgv.br/fellowship-program-for-doctoral-candidates-and-post-doc-researchers


-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/19f5f56a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Mar  9 11:05:22 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:05:22 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
References:  <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
 <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
 <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
 <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
 <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi

I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:

9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. 


It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation of 9.1.

Wolfgang



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
 
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
"Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
<wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:

> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR
> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in
> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the
> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country,
> periodic elections etc

Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in
relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not
used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its
government democratic is spelled out explicitly.

> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR
> states that rights can be restricted for the sake of the general
> welfare in a democratic society. As the UDHR is not a binding
> convention there is no authoritative interpretation of this phrase by
> an international human rights body to my knowledge.

Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word
"democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say,
certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights
instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14,
Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.

Greetings,
Norbert

> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,
> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing
> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar
> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and
> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression
> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
> 
> Wolfgang Benedek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
> 
> >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
> >David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of
> >> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything
> >> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in,
> >> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law
> >> enforcement that governments have a special role intrinsically by
> >> law). JNC denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your
> >> interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you
> >> discuss would mean.
> >
> >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
> >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
> >about this when it is available.
> >
> >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting
> >on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the
> >context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in
> >Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> >
> >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 nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Mar  9 12:12:19 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:12:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [bestbits]
 Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro>

A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that language is excellent.

On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask yourself: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over the form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum?

This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achieving the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, and bigger than technology. 

I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decade of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word.

As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade, to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest away from actually benefiting any real people's lives. 

I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost.

On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
> 
> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. 
> 
> 
> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation of 9.1.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> 
>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR
>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in
>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the
>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country,
>> periodic elections etc
> 
> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in
> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not
> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its
> government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
> 
>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR
>> states that rights can be restricted for the sake of the general
>> welfare in a democratic society. As the UDHR is not a binding
>> convention there is no authoritative interpretation of this phrase by
>> an international human rights body to my knowledge.
> 
> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word
> "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say,
> certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights
> instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14,
> Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,
>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing
>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar
>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and
>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression
>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
>> 
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of
>>>> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything
>>>> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in,
>>>> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law
>>>> enforcement that governments have a special role intrinsically by
>>>> law). JNC denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your
>>>> interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you
>>>> discuss would mean.
>>> 
>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
>>> about this when it is available.
>>> 
>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting
>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the
>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in
>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)
>>> http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/5c1b15c7/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From woody at pch.net  Mon Mar  9 13:10:31 2015
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:10:31 -0700
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re:
 [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots
 Conference"
In-Reply-To: <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <A503A37F-62C8-4F29-A0F2-1769CA858998@pch.net>


> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:06, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> The source of all of IG is WSIS.

Uh...  How old are you?  How do you think the Internet was governed for the 35 years prior to the ITU having heard about it?
    
                -Bill


> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/5abd3595/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Mar  9 13:15:28 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:45:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re:
 [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots
 Conference"
In-Reply-To: <A503A37F-62C8-4F29-A0F2-1769CA858998@pch.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
 <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
 <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
 <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
 <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
 <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
 <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro>
 <A503A37F-62C8-4F29-A0F2-1769CA858998@pch.net>
Message-ID: <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Oh well.. There was also the internet ad hoc council pre icann that 
included Bob Shaw (now retired from ITU) and that first met in Geneva

That was when ITU had a rather more constructive role to play than it tends 
to do now (and Bob was responsible for the wsis action like c5 open 
consultations at ITU Geneva back in 2007-08, I believe a substantial cross 
section of this caucus was there, all with access to flags)



On March 9, 2015 10:41:29 PM "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:

> > On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:06, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> > The source of all of IG is WSIS.
>
> Uh...  How old are you?  How do you think the Internet was governed for the 
> 35 years prior to the ITU having heard about it?
>
>                 -Bill
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> ----------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/500200ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Mar  9 13:21:51 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:21:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re:
 [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots
 Conference"
In-Reply-To: <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <A503A37F-62C8-4F29-A0F2-1769CA858998@pch.net> <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <E938F3A5-0896-44F8-9FC2-1FB772D14BD9@consensus.pro>

Clearly the point is being missed here.

"Internet Governance" as a phrase in international policy is a creature of WSIS.

On 9 Mar 2015, at 18:15, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> Oh well.. There was also the internet ad hoc council pre icann that included Bob Shaw (now retired from ITU) and that first met in Geneva
> 
> That was when ITU had a rather more constructive role to play than it tends to do now (and Bob was responsible for the wsis action like c5 open consultations at ITU Geneva back in 2007-08, I believe a substantial cross section of this caucus was there, all with access to flags) 
> On March 9, 2015 10:41:29 PM "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:06, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> The source of all of IG is WSIS.
>> 
>> Uh...  How old are you?  How do you think the Internet was governed for the 35 years prior to the ITU having heard about it ?
>>     
>>                 -Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/425d11b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/425d11b7/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 13:52:20 2015
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:52:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re:
 [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots
 Conference"
In-Reply-To: <E938F3A5-0896-44F8-9FC2-1FB772D14BD9@consensus.pro>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <A503A37F-62C8-4F29-A0F2-1769CA858998@pch.net> <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <E938F3A5-0896-44F8-9FC2-1FB772D14BD9@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <2CE0A74D-F1F6-44F6-964D-A4757F64AE75@gmail.com>

This list is drifting back into terminology arguments, yet again.

Let me pick up a paragraph from Nick's prior post and pose a couple of questions.  First, here is his earlier text:

> I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decade of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word.

So here are the questions: 

1. What advances and/or changes in 'Internet governance,' at any level, are likely in the short and medium run to improve the lives of people in terms of their economic and social well-being?

2. What are the institutions well positioned to help make these advances?  Do we have adequate institutions to do the job?  What is lacking, if anything, in terms of resources, organization, or coordination?

3. Are these the right questions to be asking?  What other questions are directly relevant to improving peoples' economic and social well-being?

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Mar 9, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> Clearly the point is being missed here.
> 
> "Internet Governance" as a phrase in international policy is a creature of WSIS.
> 
> On 9 Mar 2015, at 18:15, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
>> Oh well.. There was also the internet ad hoc council pre icann that included Bob Shaw (now retired from ITU) and that first met in Geneva
>> 
>> That was when ITU had a rather more constructive role to play than it tends to do now (and Bob was responsible for the wsis action like c5 open consultations at ITU Geneva back in 2007-08, I believe a substantial cross section of this caucus was there, all with access to flags) 
>> On March 9, 2015 10:41:29 PM "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:06, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>> The source of all of IG is WSIS.
>>> 
>>> Uh...  How old are you?  How do you think the Internet was governed for the 35 years prior to the ITU having heard about it ?
>>>     
>>>                 -Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/51758c2b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 14:27:45 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:27:45 -0700
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re:
 [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots
 Conference"
In-Reply-To: <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com>

(This was drafted before I read George's most recent note and I agree that
the discussion, hopefully revealing to some, is now getting somewhat
repetitious and addressing the questions George poses might be a worthwhile
exercise...

Nick (and George), you may believe this discussion is just about words but
clearly the USG and it's allies with their "redline" position against
democracy in Internet Governance, think differently. (If it was just "words"
why threaten to walk out if "democracy" is included.)  BTW, show of
(digital) hands here, how many people think that this discussion is just
about "words"?

I'm quite prepared to agree to the statement from the NM if only I could
understand it... It seems to me that in the crafting of diplo speak they
have squared circles and put horns on horses and created unicorns but I'll
suspend final judgement until someone does an explication and makes some
elaboration on what this formulation might look like in practice.

Re: your point about a major objective for the original WSIS was ensuring
that the Internet was accessible to and usable by and for the benefit of all
(which has now been largely forgotten by the MSists).  You may recall my
noting that a major failing of the Brazil Net Mundial was its failure to
address these issues in any significant way and I attributed this to their
failure to in fact be effectively multi-stakeholder i.e. they overlooked (or
perhaps systematically excluded) the primary stakeholders in this area, the
rural and marginalized populations (and those such as Community Informatics
folks) who work with these populations and on their behalf.

Re: WB's rather bizarre characterization of this conversation as "bizarre",
perhaps this could be explained by the fact that he is evidently the
official spokesperson for the  1% WEF ++"s attempted insertion into Internet
Governance on behalf of the MSists through the NMI.

M


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart
Sent: March 9, 2015 9:12 AM
To: Governance; Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Cc: Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at;
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [bestbits]
Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"


--Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=iso-8859-1

A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that langu=
age is excellent.

On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask your=
self: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's =
lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over t=
he form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum?

This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achievin=
g the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, a=
nd bigger than technology.=20

I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of=
arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decad=
e of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly =
bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word.

As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade=
, to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest aw=
ay from actually benefiting any real people's lives.=20

I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope =
it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost.

On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at m=
edienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi
>=20
> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 
>wortdsmithin=
g discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
>=20
> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: 
>Internet =
governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensur=
ing the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, inclu=
ding governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical communit=
y, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilit=
ies of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with referen=
ce to the issue under discussion.=20
>=20
>=20
> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 
>Paul=
o rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation=
of 9.1.
>=20
> Wolfgang
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert 
>Bollow
> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang 
>(wolfgang.benedek at un=
i-graz.at)
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> Ceremony o=
f "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>=20
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>=20
>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR 
>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in 
>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the 
>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, 
>> periodic elections etc
>=20
> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in  
>relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not  
>used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its  
>government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
>=20
>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be 
>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic 
>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no 
>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human 
>> rights body to my knowledge.
>=20
> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word  
>"democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say,  
>certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights  
>instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14,  
>Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
>=20
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>=20
>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,  
>>the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing  
>>social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar  
>>limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and  
>>examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression  
>>and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
>>=20
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>>=20
>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of 
>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means 
>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all 
>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that 
>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies 
>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of 
>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
>>>=20
>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a  
>>>position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post  
>>>about this when it is available.
>>>=20
>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting  
>>>on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the  
>>>context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in  
>>>Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>=20
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)  http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>=20
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>=20
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


--Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU/cZjAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00dCUL/0ML8ToXqbm7bxV1QrHoAiUe
770RMhqvq5Pw5YQfbIlXEr5YIm3h8jFFHm3g18rMCLXYj+uUKySEUnjHwQcM10Ck
JvWjM5F8IfuFRA5W3rn/q4UOTpmSwTEVTc47bXxzIRSRdorvKPpCOFNEUjV4F1FR
YMnUhoSDEOz5PO7+bKMce3nBnWheyYRxYSgesKgQsZqaV4zXXqxzndo7cO1EAGuy
ZCGMkLAu+h2UKH+6LBaIJwErL3DpfjItm7wQzK8bzuYqM0DWHQCZ4KcVVLbeNbre
kTaF74LxOZPppj9kb9NLO360h6SZS80kGueAxMuRMWhT4nBCrC6rj478IXq948Be
mfLNDU/prRSnC1IalqiPBN6kOPiyK0mN09ziSgavkKSN+AgvvOG7dyfSuxnnRMyr
fJRkGFFeYr6J2lQX3HsBYFOuxmatWE1hmDRlnIAVSlMJvp/FBYMGKmFsKRu8bqd4
3wKZpWDemj1WfxgkWuHNwNSu6JRs4qBXzUKEkYFdjw==
=3UVw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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

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

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

--Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94--


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

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

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

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 14:49:52 2015
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:49:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re:
 [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots
 Conference"
In-Reply-To: <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com>

Mike,

I think that it would be more productive to talk about tangible goals that people can recognize as useful in their daily lives, and how to achieve those goals.  If we can agree upon those goals, then we might shift to talking about the best means to achieve them.

Let me be blunt, Mike.  You are a friend and colleague, and I believe that you will take what I say in a constructive manner.  For the purposes of this discussion, I couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree with any part of the Sao Paulo statement.  I care more about whether you and I agree on goals for progressing the value of the Internet to humanity so that we can then make the transition to talking about how best to achieve them  --  and then, I hope, working to achieve them.  I mean implementation, and I know that you are no stranger to that.

However, if you really want to work toward philosophical and political convergence and get unanimous agreement on the meaning of words as related to the anatomy of political systems, then you will spend another ten years on this list repeating the last ten years of discussion, and anyone really involved in development results will cease to take this discussion seriously if they have not already done so.  Since these lists permit freedom of expression, it's your call. 

George 


On Mar 9, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> (This was drafted before I read George's most recent note and I agree that
> the discussion, hopefully revealing to some, is now getting somewhat
> repetitious and addressing the questions George poses might be a worthwhile
> exercise...
> 
> Nick (and George), you may believe this discussion is just about words but
> clearly the USG and it's allies with their "redline" position against
> democracy in Internet Governance, think differently. (If it was just "words"
> why threaten to walk out if "democracy" is included.)  BTW, show of
> (digital) hands here, how many people think that this discussion is just
> about "words"?
> 
> I'm quite prepared to agree to the statement from the NM if only I could
> understand it... It seems to me that in the crafting of diplo speak they
> have squared circles and put horns on horses and created unicorns but I'll
> suspend final judgement until someone does an explication and makes some
> elaboration on what this formulation might look like in practice.
> 
> Re: your point about a major objective for the original WSIS was ensuring
> that the Internet was accessible to and usable by and for the benefit of all
> (which has now been largely forgotten by the MSists).  You may recall my
> noting that a major failing of the Brazil Net Mundial was its failure to
> address these issues in any significant way and I attributed this to their
> failure to in fact be effectively multi-stakeholder i.e. they overlooked (or
> perhaps systematically excluded) the primary stakeholders in this area, the
> rural and marginalized populations (and those such as Community Informatics
> folks) who work with these populations and on their behalf.
> 
> Re: WB's rather bizarre characterization of this conversation as "bizarre",
> perhaps this could be explained by the fact that he is evidently the
> official spokesperson for the  1% WEF ++"s attempted insertion into Internet
> Governance on behalf of the MSists through the NMI.
> 
> M
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart
> Sent: March 9, 2015 9:12 AM
> To: Governance; Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> Cc: Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [bestbits]
> Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that langu=
> age is excellent.
> 
> On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask your=
> self: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's =
> lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over t=
> he form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum?
> 
> This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achievin=
> g the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, a=
> nd bigger than technology.=20
> 
> I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of=
> arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decad=
> e of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly =
> bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word.
> 
> As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade=
> , to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest aw=
> ay from actually benefiting any real people's lives.=20
> 
> I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope =
> it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost.
> 
> On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at m=
> edienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> =20
>> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 
>> wortdsmithin=
> g discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
>> =20
>> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: 
>> Internet =
> governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensur=
> ing the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, inclu=
> ding governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical communit=
> y, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilit=
> ies of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with referen=
> ce to the issue under discussion.=20
>> =20
>> =20
>> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 
>> Paul=
> o rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation=
> of 9.1.
>> =20
>> Wolfgang
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert 
>> Bollow
>> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang 
>> (wolfgang.benedek at un=
> i-graz.at)
>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>> Ceremony o=
> f "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> =20
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
>> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
>> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>> =20
>>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR 
>>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in 
>>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the 
>>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, 
>>> periodic elections etc
>> =20
>> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in  
>> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not  
>> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its  
>> government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
>> =20
>>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be 
>>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic 
>>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no 
>>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human 
>>> rights body to my knowledge.
>> =20
>> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word  
>> "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say,  
>> certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights  
>> instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14,  
>> Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
>> =20
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> =20
>>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,  
>>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing  
>>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar  
>>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and  
>>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression  
>>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
>>> =20
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>>> =20
>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>>>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of 
>>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means 
>>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all 
>>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that 
>>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies 
>>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of 
>>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
>>>> =20
>>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a  
>>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post  
>>>> about this when it is available.
>>>> =20
>>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting  
>>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the  
>>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in  
>>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>> =20
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)  http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> =20
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> =20
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> 	filename=signature.asc
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
> 	name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> 
> iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU/cZjAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00dCUL/0ML8ToXqbm7bxV1QrHoAiUe
> 770RMhqvq5Pw5YQfbIlXEr5YIm3h8jFFHm3g18rMCLXYj+uUKySEUnjHwQcM10Ck
> JvWjM5F8IfuFRA5W3rn/q4UOTpmSwTEVTc47bXxzIRSRdorvKPpCOFNEUjV4F1FR
> YMnUhoSDEOz5PO7+bKMce3nBnWheyYRxYSgesKgQsZqaV4zXXqxzndo7cO1EAGuy
> ZCGMkLAu+h2UKH+6LBaIJwErL3DpfjItm7wQzK8bzuYqM0DWHQCZ4KcVVLbeNbre
> kTaF74LxOZPppj9kb9NLO360h6SZS80kGueAxMuRMWhT4nBCrC6rj478IXq948Be
> mfLNDU/prRSnC1IalqiPBN6kOPiyK0mN09ziSgavkKSN+AgvvOG7dyfSuxnnRMyr
> fJRkGFFeYr6J2lQX3HsBYFOuxmatWE1hmDRlnIAVSlMJvp/FBYMGKmFsKRu8bqd4
> 3wKZpWDemj1WfxgkWuHNwNSu6JRs4qBXzUKEkYFdjw==
> =3UVw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94--
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Mar  9 15:01:40 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 20:01:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS
 Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com> <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <98D13DF8-EFD5-4B85-9690-81BECCAA194E@consensus.pro>

Dear George,

Thank you for taking what I said in the spirit it was intended.

For what it is worth, here are a couple of areas where I think practical multistakeholderism can be used concretely to help "square the circle":

1) In talking to development agencies (both national and international) and also philanthropic organisations from the tech sector it is clear there's a disconnect: these two communities don't routinely work together. It is axiomatic that you can't effectively deliver on sustainable development without all stakeholders working together on shared practical objectives. How can the divide above - which is mirrored at the policy level, where WSIS' development followup via UNGIS etc is very statist - be narrowed?

2) A bit less than half of the world is online, yet these are the easiest to connect - the more that percentage rises the more those who are left are those who are either poor (financially) or living in remote or low population density areas. Given these facts, is there an opportunity for a multi-stakeholder based "Marshall Plan" to bring the stakeholders to the table that are necessary to deal with the obstacles - and marshall the resources - to narrow the gap. 

A big idea for thought: why not have as a goal of WSIS+10 that we reach 100% connectivity across the human family - affordable in the context of each user -  within the next 10 years. 

I can think of more, but in these two I can see an obvious role for multi-stakeholder-based processes - meaning, that such processes would be indispensable to success. 

On 9 Mar 2015, at 19:49, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> 
> I think that it would be more productive to talk about tangible goals that people can recognize as useful in their daily lives, and how to achieve those goals.  If we can agree upon those goals, then we might shift to talking about the best means to achieve them.
> 
> Let me be blunt, Mike.  You are a friend and colleague, and I believe that you will take what I say in a constructive manner.  For the purposes of this discussion, I couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree with any part of the Sao Paulo statement.  I care more about whether you and I agree on goals for progressing the value of the Internet to humanity so that we can then make the transition to talking about how best to achieve them  --  and then, I hope, working to achieve them.  I mean implementation, and I know that you are no stranger to that.
> 
> However, if you really want to work toward philosophical and political convergence and get unanimous agreement on the meaning of words as related to the anatomy of political systems, then you will spend another ten years on this list repeating the last ten years of discussion, and anyone really involved in development results will cease to take this discussion seriously if they have not already done so.  Since these lists permit freedom of expression, it's your call. 
> 
> George 
> 
> 
> On Mar 9, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> (This was drafted before I read George's most recent note and I agree that
>> the discussion, hopefully revealing to some, is now getting somewhat
>> repetitious and addressing the questions George poses might be a worthwhile
>> exercise...
>> 
>> Nick (and George), you may believe this discussion is just about words but
>> clearly the USG and it's allies with their "redline" position against
>> democracy in Internet Governance, think differently. (If it was just "words"
>> why threaten to walk out if "democracy" is included.)  BTW, show of
>> (digital) hands here, how many people think that this discussion is just
>> about "words"?
>> 
>> I'm quite prepared to agree to the statement from the NM if only I could
>> understand it... It seems to me that in the crafting of diplo speak they
>> have squared circles and put horns on horses and created unicorns but I'll
>> suspend final judgement until someone does an explication and makes some
>> elaboration on what this formulation might look like in practice.
>> 
>> Re: your point about a major objective for the original WSIS was ensuring
>> that the Internet was accessible to and usable by and for the benefit of all
>> (which has now been largely forgotten by the MSists).  You may recall my
>> noting that a major failing of the Brazil Net Mundial was its failure to
>> address these issues in any significant way and I attributed this to their
>> failure to in fact be effectively multi-stakeholder i.e. they overlooked (or
>> perhaps systematically excluded) the primary stakeholders in this area, the
>> rural and marginalized populations (and those such as Community Informatics
>> folks) who work with these populations and on their behalf.
>> 
>> Re: WB's rather bizarre characterization of this conversation as "bizarre",
>> perhaps this could be explained by the fact that he is evidently the
>> official spokesperson for the  1% WEF ++"s attempted insertion into Internet
>> Governance on behalf of the MSists through the NMI.
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Sent: March 9, 2015 9:12 AM
>> To: Governance; Wolfgang Kleinwächter
>> Cc: Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at;
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [bestbits]
>> Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> 	charset=iso-8859-1
>> 
>> A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that langu=
>> age is excellent.
>> 
>> On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask your=
>> self: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's =
>> lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over t=
>> he form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum?
>> 
>> This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achievin=
>> g the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, a=
>> nd bigger than technology.=20
>> 
>> I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of=
>> arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decad=
>> e of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly =
>> bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word.
>> 
>> As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade=
>> , to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest aw=
>> ay from actually benefiting any real people's lives.=20
>> 
>> I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope =
>> it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost.
>> 
>> On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at m=
>> edienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> =20
>>> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 
>>> wortdsmithin=
>> g discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
>>> =20
>>> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: 
>>> Internet =
>> governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensur=
>> ing the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, inclu=
>> ding governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical communit=
>> y, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilit=
>> ies of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with referen=
>> ce to the issue under discussion.=20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 
>>> Paul=
>> o rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation=
>> of 9.1.
>>> =20
>>> Wolfgang
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert 
>>> Bollow
>>> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang 
>>> (wolfgang.benedek at un=
>> i-graz.at)
>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>>> Ceremony o=
>> f "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> =20
>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
>>> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
>>> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>>> =20
>>>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR 
>>>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in 
>>>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the 
>>>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, 
>>>> periodic elections etc
>>> =20
>>> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in  
>>> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not  
>>> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its  
>>> government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
>>> =20
>>>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be 
>>>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic 
>>>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no 
>>>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human 
>>>> rights body to my knowledge.
>>> =20
>>> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word  
>>> "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say,  
>>> certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights  
>>> instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14,  
>>> Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
>>> =20
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> =20
>>>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,  
>>>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing  
>>>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar  
>>>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and  
>>>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression  
>>>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
>>>> =20
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>>>> =20
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>>>>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of 
>>>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means 
>>>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all 
>>>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that 
>>>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies 
>>>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of 
>>>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a  
>>>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post  
>>>>> about this when it is available.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting  
>>>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the  
>>>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in  
>>>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)  http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> =20
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> =20
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>> 	filename=signature.asc
>> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
>> 	name=signature.asc
>> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>> 
>> iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU/cZjAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00dCUL/0ML8ToXqbm7bxV1QrHoAiUe
>> 770RMhqvq5Pw5YQfbIlXEr5YIm3h8jFFHm3g18rMCLXYj+uUKySEUnjHwQcM10Ck
>> JvWjM5F8IfuFRA5W3rn/q4UOTpmSwTEVTc47bXxzIRSRdorvKPpCOFNEUjV4F1FR
>> YMnUhoSDEOz5PO7+bKMce3nBnWheyYRxYSgesKgQsZqaV4zXXqxzndo7cO1EAGuy
>> ZCGMkLAu+h2UKH+6LBaIJwErL3DpfjItm7wQzK8bzuYqM0DWHQCZ4KcVVLbeNbre
>> kTaF74LxOZPppj9kb9NLO360h6SZS80kGueAxMuRMWhT4nBCrC6rj478IXq948Be
>> mfLNDU/prRSnC1IalqiPBN6kOPiyK0mN09ziSgavkKSN+AgvvOG7dyfSuxnnRMyr
>> fJRkGFFeYr6J2lQX3HsBYFOuxmatWE1hmDRlnIAVSlMJvp/FBYMGKmFsKRu8bqd4
>> 3wKZpWDemj1WfxgkWuHNwNSu6JRs4qBXzUKEkYFdjw==
>> =3UVw
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94--
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/97114f04/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Mar  9 15:07:13 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:07:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re:
 [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots
 Conference"
In-Reply-To: <E938F3A5-0896-44F8-9FC2-1FB772D14BD9@consensus.pro>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
 <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
 <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
 <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
 <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
 <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
 <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro>
 <A503A37F-62C8-4F29-A0F2-1769CA858998@pch.net>
 <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <E938F3A5-0896-44F8-9FC2-1FB772D14BD9@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <913b339f958249ddb0e2cbe52f0c7745@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

>Clearly the point is being missed here.
>
>"Internet Governance" as a phrase in international policy is a creature of WSIS.

I would disagree with that, Nick. The ICANN/DNS root debates, known as 'Internet governance" debates at the time, preceded WSIS by 6-7 years, and actually involved the ITU from about 1996 (as Suresh has intimated). In fact WSIS represented little more than many of the world's governments waking up to the fact that the Internet existed, was important, and that a new set of private sector-led institutions had been created that they had a very diminished role in. It was literally a reactionary event.

My book on these early battles (Ruling the root), published in 2002 and written before WSIS, used the term "internet governance" in the title and everyone knew what it meant. True, WSIS politicized Internet governance more than it had been and attempted to bring it into the multilateral system, but that is not the same as saying that the topic and controversy was a "creature" of WSIS.

WSIS actually started as an attempt to promote telecom infrastructure development; ICANN and IG were unintended and emergent agenda items as it developed. That history is recounted in Networks and States (2010).

In terms of whose lives we are helping, it's an unfortunate fact of reality that people who build things and make them work at some stage of the game have to deal with forces and people from the political realm who want to control them or feel threatened by what they do. Thus, simply fending off these efforts can help a lot of lives.

--MM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/706e3e81/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Mar  9 15:14:31 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 20:14:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re:
 [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots
 Conference"
In-Reply-To: <913b339f958249ddb0e2cbe52f0c7745@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <A503A37F-62C8-4F29-A0F2-1769CA858998@pch.net> <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <E938F3A5-0896-44F8-9FC2-1FB772D14BD9@consensus.pro> <913b339f958249ddb0e2cbe52f0c7745@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <DAA3827E-D253-467F-AD4C-3DD2CDDE4A8F@consensus.pro>

<sigh>

How about this. Could we all assume that the phrase:

"the source of all of IG is WSIS"

Does not appear in my comment? It is completely, entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. I wish I had instead said:

"On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask yourself: WSIS' goal was and is the use of technology to make people's lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over the form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum?"

Again, I thank George once again for realising what the main point was.

Regards, Nick

On 9 Mar 2015, at 20:07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> >Clearly the point is being missed here.
> > 
> >"Internet Governance" as a phrase in international policy is a creature of WSIS.
>  
> I would disagree with that, Nick. The ICANN/DNS root debates, known as ‘Internet governance” debates at the time, preceded WSIS by 6-7 years, and actually involved the ITU from about 1996 (as Suresh has intimated). In fact WSIS represented little more than many of the world’s governments waking up to the fact that the Internet existed, was important, and that a new set of private sector-led institutions had been created that they had a very diminished role in. It was literally a reactionary event.
>  
> My book on these early battles (Ruling the root), published in 2002 and written before WSIS, used the term “internet governance” in the title and everyone knew what it meant. True, WSIS politicized Internet governance more than it had been and attempted to bring it into the multilateral system, but that is not the same as saying that the topic and controversy was a “creature” of WSIS.
>  
> WSIS actually started as an attempt to promote telecom infrastructure development; ICANN and IG were unintended and emergent agenda items as it developed. That history is recounted in Networks and States (2010).
>  
> In terms of whose lives we are helping, it’s an unfortunate fact of reality that people who build things and make them work at some stage of the game have to deal with forces and people from the political realm who want to control them or feel threatened by what they do. Thus, simply fending off these efforts can help a lot of lives.
>  
> --MM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/3579a398/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/3579a398/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Mar  9 15:34:45 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:34:45 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
 <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
 <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
 <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
 <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
 <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
 <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Wolfgang

Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental.

I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more. 
As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. 

Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government.   

None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. 

Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things: 

A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy 

B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic

C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? 

I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> Hi
> 
> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing
> discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
> 
> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder
> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all
> stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the
> technical community, the academic community and users. The respective
> roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible
> manner with reference to the issue under discussion.
> 
> 
> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo
> rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation
> of 9.1.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang
> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> 
> > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR
> > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in
> > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the
> > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country,
> > periodic elections etc
> 
> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to
> governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a
> very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is
> spelled out explicitly.
> 
> > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be
> > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic
> > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no
> > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human
> > rights body to my knowledge.
> 
> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic"
> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same
> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are
> some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,
> > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing
> > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar
> > limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and
> > examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression
> > and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
> >
> > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
> > >David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of
> > >> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means
> > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all
> > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that
> > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies
> > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of
> > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
> > >
> > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
> > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
> > >about this when it is available.
> > >
> > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting
> > >on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the
> > >context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in
> > >Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> > >
> > >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 gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 16:01:53 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:01:53 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS
 Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com> <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <021601d05aa3$e3db17e0$ab9147a0$@gmail.com>

Hi George,

 

While I agree with where you are going with the below and I'll respond
inline, anyone who doesn't think that words matter need only look at the
effect of the US Supreme Court in re-interpreting, (in Citizen’s United)
what was it, three words in the First Amendment to the US Constitution,
which evidently has had the effect of turning what was a haltingly
functioning democracy into a more or less completely dysfunctional
oligarchy. But I guess that anyone who could or would learn from this
discussion has already done so and yes, we should probably push on...

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: March 9, 2015 11:50 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS
Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

Mike,

 

I think that it would be more productive to talk about tangible goals that
people can recognize as useful in their daily lives, and how to achieve
those goals.  If we can agree upon those goals, then we might shift to
talking about the best means to achieve them.

[MG] I agree

 

Let me be blunt, Mike.  You are a friend and colleague, and I believe that
you will take what I say in a constructive manner.  For the purposes of this
discussion, I couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree with any part
of the Sao Paulo statement.  I care more about whether you and I agree on
goals for progressing the value of the Internet to humanity so that we can
then make the transition to talking about how best to achieve them  --  and
then, I hope, working to achieve them.  I mean implementation, and I know
that you are no stranger to that.

[MG] agree again

 

However, if you really want to work toward philosophical and political
convergence and get unanimous agreement on the meaning of words as related
to the anatomy of political systems, then you will spend another ten years
on this list repeating the last ten years of discussion, and anyone really
involved in development results will cease to take this discussion seriously
if they have not already done so.  Since these lists permit freedom of
expression, it's your call.

[MG] agree again... a trifecta...now where to :)

 

Mike

 

George 

 

 

On Mar 9, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Michael Gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

 

> (This was drafted before I read George's most recent note and I agree 

> that the discussion, hopefully revealing to some, is now getting 

> somewhat repetitious and addressing the questions George poses might 

> be a worthwhile exercise...

> 

> Nick (and George), you may believe this discussion is just about words 

> but clearly the USG and it's allies with their "redline" position 

> against democracy in Internet Governance, think differently. (If it was
just "words"

> why threaten to walk out if "democracy" is included.)  BTW, show of

> (digital) hands here, how many people think that this discussion is 

> just about "words"?

> 

> I'm quite prepared to agree to the statement from the NM if only I 

> could understand it... It seems to me that in the crafting of diplo 

> speak they have squared circles and put horns on horses and created 

> unicorns but I'll suspend final judgement until someone does an 

> explication and makes some elaboration on what this formulation might look
like in practice.

> 

> Re: your point about a major objective for the original WSIS was 

> ensuring that the Internet was accessible to and usable by and for the 

> benefit of all (which has now been largely forgotten by the MSists).  

> You may recall my noting that a major failing of the Brazil Net 

> Mundial was its failure to address these issues in any significant way 

> and I attributed this to their failure to in fact be effectively 

> multi-stakeholder i.e. they overlooked (or perhaps systematically 

> excluded) the primary stakeholders in this area, the rural and 

> marginalized populations (and those such as Community Informatics

> folks) who work with these populations and on their behalf.

> 

> Re: WB's rather bizarre characterization of this conversation as 

> "bizarre", perhaps this could be explained by the fact that he is 

> evidently the official spokesperson for the  1% WEF ++"s attempted 

> insertion into Internet Governance on behalf of the MSists through the
NMI.

> 

> M

> 

> 

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

> From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org

> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick 

> Ashton-Hart

> Sent: March 9, 2015 9:12 AM

> To: Governance; Wolfgang Kleinwächter

> Cc: Norbert Bollow;  <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; 

>  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

> Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: 

> [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots
Conference"

> 

> 

> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94

> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Content-Type: text/plain;

>             charset=iso-8859-1

> 

> A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that 

> langu= age is excellent.

> 

> On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask 

> your=

> self: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make 

> people's = lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this 

> hostility over t= he form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that
continuum?

> 

> This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with 

> achievin= g the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something 

> bigger than WSIS, a= nd bigger than technology.=20

> 

> I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great 

> deal of= arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure 

> the next decad= e of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of 

> real people and truly = bridging the digital divide - in every sense of
the word.

> 

> As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from 

> trade= , to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the 

> furthest aw= ay from actually benefiting any real people's lives.=20

> 

> I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly 

> hope = it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is
lost.

> 

> On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang 

> < <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at m=%20edienkomm.uni-halle.de>
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at m= edienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> 

>> Hi

>> =20

>> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 

>> wortdsmithin=

> g discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:

>> =20

>> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: 

>> Internet =

> governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, 

> ensur= ing the meaningful and accountable participation of all 

> stakeholders, inclu= ding governments, the private sector, civil 

> society, the technical communit= y, the academic community and users. 

> The respective roles and responsibilit= ies of stakeholders should be 

> interpreted in a flexible manner with referen= ce to the issue under 

> discussion.=20

>> =20

>> =20

>> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 

>> Paul=

> o rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the 

> implementation= of 9.1.

>> =20

>> Wolfgang

>> =20

>> =20

>> =20

>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----

>> Von:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert 

>> Bollow

>> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40

>> An:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang 

>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at un> wolfgang.benedek at un=

> i-graz.at)

>> Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 

>> Ceremony o=

> f "Connecting the Dots Conference"

>> =20

>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100

>> "Benedek, Wolfgang ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"

>> < <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
wrote:

>> =20

>>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR 

>>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in 

>>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the 

>>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, 

>>> periodic elections etc

>> =20

>> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in 

>> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not 

>> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and 

>> its government democratic is spelled out explicitly.

>> =20

>>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be 

>>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic 

>>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no 

>>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international 

>>> human rights body to my knowledge.

>> =20

>> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word 

>> "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, 

>> certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights 

>> instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, 

>> Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.

>> =20

>> Greetings,

>> Norbert

>> =20

>>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, 

>>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing 

>>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the 

>>> similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More 

>>> and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of 

>>> Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.

>>> =20

>>> Wolfgang Benedek

>>> =20

>>> =20

>>> =20

>>> =20

>>> =20

>>> =20

>>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
nb at bollow.ch>:

>>> =20

>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800

>>>> David Cake < <mailto:dave at difference.com.au> dave at difference.com.au>
wrote:

>>>> =20

>>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of 

>>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means 

>>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all 

>>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that 

>>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies 

>>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of 

>>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.

>>>> =20

>>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a 

>>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post 

>>>> about this when it is available.

>>>> =20

>>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in 

>>>> reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" 

>>>> in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is 

>>>> used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

>>>> =20

>>>> Greetings,

>>>> Norbert

>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)   <http://JustNetCoalition.org>
http://JustNetCoalition.org

>>>> =20

>>> =20

>>> =20

>> =20

>> =20

>> =20

>> =20

>> ____________________________________________________________

>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>> To be removed from the list, visit:

>>     <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

>> =20

>> For all other list information and functions, see:

>>     <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>>     <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

>> =20

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

> 

> 

> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94

> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Content-Disposition: attachment;

>             filename=signature.asc

> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;

>             name=signature.asc

> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

> 

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Comment: GPGTools -  <http://gpgtools.org> http://gpgtools.org

> 

> iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU/cZjAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00dCUL/0ML8ToXqbm7bxV1QrHoAiUe

> 770RMhqvq5Pw5YQfbIlXEr5YIm3h8jFFHm3g18rMCLXYj+uUKySEUnjHwQcM10Ck

> JvWjM5F8IfuFRA5W3rn/q4UOTpmSwTEVTc47bXxzIRSRdorvKPpCOFNEUjV4F1FR

> YMnUhoSDEOz5PO7+bKMce3nBnWheyYRxYSgesKgQsZqaV4zXXqxzndo7cO1EAGuy

> ZCGMkLAu+h2UKH+6LBaIJwErL3DpfjItm7wQzK8bzuYqM0DWHQCZ4KcVVLbeNbre

> kTaF74LxOZPppj9kb9NLO360h6SZS80kGueAxMuRMWhT4nBCrC6rj478IXq948Be

> mfLNDU/prRSnC1IalqiPBN6kOPiyK0mN09ziSgavkKSN+AgvvOG7dyfSuxnnRMyr

> fJRkGFFeYr6J2lQX3HsBYFOuxmatWE1hmDRlnIAVSlMJvp/FBYMGKmFsKRu8bqd4

> 3wKZpWDemj1WfxgkWuHNwNSu6JRs4qBXzUKEkYFdjw==

> =3UVw

> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> 

> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> Content-Disposition: inline

> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

> To be removed from the list, visit:

>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

> 

> For all other list information and functions, see:

>      <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

> 

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

> 

> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94--

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

> To be removed from the list, visit:

>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

> 

> For all other list information and functions, see:

>      <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

> 

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/6e549b90/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 16:33:39 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:33:39 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <023a01d05aa8$54475170$fcd5f450$@gmail.com>

As it happens I agree with quite a lot of what Milton says below but the
issues emerge from what he doesn't say...

Certainly, current modalities of democratic governance don't easily
translate into the global sphere and certainly there are significant
challenges at all levels--conceptual, practical, logistical, operational in
developing a functional democratic governance for the Internet and overall
for our increasingly globalized set of dilemmas and policy requirements.
What he doesn't say is that "democracy" is as much or more of an aspiration
and a direction--a normative foundation for how one works to respond to
those challenges.  In that context MSism is a competitive set of norms and
practices -- one which seeks to put the ultimate power for decision making
not, as in "democracy", "in the hand of the people", but rather wishes to
reserve that power for self-identified elites, those who are in control of
the existing status quo.

I certainly wouldn't and I don't think the JNC would overall suggest that
I/we had definitive solutions here but we do know that the quite visible
attempt to impose a MSist solution without any broad based and inclusive
consultation, without a clear articulation of what MSism means, of how it
might operate in practice (note there has been no answer to my repeated
requests for a response to the quite specific examples existing MS practical
implementations to which I pointed) is not the way to go.  

I've said this before and I'll repeat this (and hopefully as George/Nick are
suggesting we can move on) people of good will should be spending their
efforts on trying to figure out how to achieve a governance of the Internet
that serves the interests and provides benefits to all, that enhances the
capacity for individual and communal self-governance and empowerment, that
supports personal liberties and social justice. The attempt by power and
wealth to seize control of the Internet via MSism for their own purposes and
aided and abetted by collaborators in academic, "civil society" and
elsewhere is something that must be resisted.

I have no doubt that a truly functional system of Internet Governance that
was serving the public good would be one which included a significant degree
of multistakeholder input and involvement, it would be ridiculous to say
otherwise; but to insist as so many here (and elsewhere) are doing, that the
fundamental structures of global (Internet) governance should be MS in form
is to deny the dignity of all for the benefit of the few.

M  

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: March 9, 2015 12:35 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow;
wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

Wolfgang

Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the
problem. It is more fundamental.

I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a
dozen times, if not more. 
As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very
meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in
a globalized environment. 

Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and
limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that
verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral
machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also
LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect
individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various
branches of government.   

None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet.
There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution
dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state,
etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences
of a global population. The territorial division of populations into
distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own
pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European
parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of
possible examples. 

Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of
these things: 

A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy"
is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it.
Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of
course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy 

B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing
states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the
classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage
which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not
internally democratic

C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of
the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But
if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will
take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When
MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of
the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what
law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? 

I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but
the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented
by B. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- 
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; 
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> Hi
> 
> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 
> wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration
which states:
> 
> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder 
> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of 
> all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil 
> society, the technical community, the academic community and users. 
> The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 
> interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under
discussion.
> 
> 
> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 
> Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the 
> implementation of 9.1.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert 
> Bollow
> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang
> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> 
> > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR 
> > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in 
> > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the 
> > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, 
> > periodic elections etc
> 
> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in 
> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not 
> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and 
> its government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
> 
> > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be 
> > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic 
> > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no 
> > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international 
> > human rights body to my knowledge.
> 
> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic"
> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the 
> same
> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, 
> here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art.
4.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, 
> > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing 
> > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the 
> > similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More 
> > and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of 
> > Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
> >
> > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
> > >David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions 
> > >> of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means 
> > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all 
> > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that 
> > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies 
> > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of 
> > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
> > >
> > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a 
> > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post 
> > >about this when it is available.
> > >
> > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in 
> > >reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" 
> > >in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is 
> > >used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> > >
> > >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 bzs at world.std.com  Mon Mar  9 18:37:02 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:37:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
	<20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
Message-ID: <21758.8334.949156.450267@world.std.com>


Multistakeholder and democratic structures are not diametric.

Multistakeholder may or may not be democratic.

What is really being discussed is the unit of enfranchisement.

In Multistakeholderism the unit of enfranchisement is a recognized
interest group of people or organizations (e.g., telecom corporations
might unite to form a stakeholder group.)

In democracy it can be anything from an individual to multilateral
governmental organizations whose enfranchisement units are limited to
the 180 or so countries as voting members, or subsets or coalitions
thereof which is in effect the same thing since those choose to subset
or coalesce presumably by their own or via a subscribed initiative
process.

So the issues of multistakeholderism are:

1. How are the units of enfranchisement chosen or recognized?

2. How do they act? Democratically is one choice.

3. How is a body of multistakeholders coordinated and governed?

I think at this point the vagaries lie in #1, how are the units of
enfranchisement defined in a multistakeholder governing structure?

Are they self-defined? Whoever stands and claims to be represent a
stakeholder group must be recognized, as one extreme?

Are they defined by some higher authority such as an organizing
document or body to whom you must apply to be recognized as a
stakeholder for the purposes of enfranchisement?

Given some definitions for #1 one might be able to proceed to the
other definitional points.

-- 
        -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  Tue Mar 10 01:12:52 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 05:12:52 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
 <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
 <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
 <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
 <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
 <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
 <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Milton,

To my knowledge there are no "European parties" standing for elections in any Member State of the EU. Yet.

There are myriads of permutations (or should I say perturbations) of structures created by "political families" trying to link nations with that sweet slogan "United in Diversity".

And as I said before, now even the CJEU has joined the discussion with its Opinion 2/13, which transferred would fall in your category C).

For what it's worth, I'm all for motherhood and apple pie.

As another Charlie said, let us all unite in the name of democracy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA

Best regards.

//Erik

________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Monday 9 March 2015 20:34
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Wolfgang

Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental.

I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment.

Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government.

None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples.

Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things:

A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy

B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic

C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable?

I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
> Hi
>
> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing
> discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
>
> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder
> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all
> stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the
> technical community, the academic community and users. The respective
> roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible
> manner with reference to the issue under discussion.
>
>
> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo
> rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation
> of 9.1.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang
> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>
> > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR
> > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in
> > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the
> > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country,
> > periodic elections etc
>
> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to
> governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a
> very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is
> spelled out explicitly.
>
> > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be
> > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic
> > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no
> > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human
> > rights body to my knowledge.
>
> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic"
> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same
> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are
> some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
> > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,
> > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing
> > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar
> > limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and
> > examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression
> > and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
> >
> > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
> > >David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of
> > >> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means
> > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all
> > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that
> > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies
> > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of
> > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
> > >
> > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
> > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
> > >about this when it is available.
> > >
> > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting
> > >on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the
> > >context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in
> > >Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> > >
> > >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 gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 01:36:46 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:36:46 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <042601d05af4$354fb2c0$9fef1840$@gmail.com>

One of the great speeches of all time... Maybe we should invite him to join
the JNC... :)

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of JOSEFSSON Erik
Sent: March 9, 2015 10:13 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller; "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

Milton,

 

To my knowledge there are no "European parties" standing for elections in
any Member State of the EU. Yet.

 

There are myriads of permutations (or should I say perturbations) of
structures created by "political families" trying to link nations with that
sweet slogan "United in Diversity".

 

And as I said before, now even the CJEU has joined the discussion with its
Opinion 2/13, which transferred would fall in your category C).

 

For what it's worth, I'm all for motherhood and apple pie.

 

As another Charlie said, let us all unite in the name of democracy:

 

 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA

 

Best regards.

 

//Erik

 

________________________________________

From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller
[mueller at syr.edu]

Sent: Monday 9 March 2015 20:34

To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow;
<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at

Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

Wolfgang

 

Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the
problem. It is more fundamental.

 

I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a
dozen times, if not more.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very
meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in
a globalized environment.

 

Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and
limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that
verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral
machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also
LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect
individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various
branches of government.

 

None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet.
There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution
dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state,
etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences
of a global population. The territorial division of populations into
distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own
pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European
parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of
possible examples.

 

Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of
these things:

 

A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy"
is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it.
Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of
course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy

 

B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing
states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the
classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage
which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not
internally democratic

 

C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of
the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But
if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will
take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When
MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of
the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what
law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable?

 

I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but
the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented
by B.

 

--MM

 

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

> From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- 

>  <mailto:request at lists.igcaucus.org> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf
Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"

> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM

> To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
Norbert Bollow; 

>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at

> Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 

> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> Hi

> 

> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 

> wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration
which states:

> 

> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:

> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder 

> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of 

> all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil 

> society, the technical community, the academic community and users. 

> The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 

> interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under
discussion.

> 

> 

> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 

> Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the 

> implementation of 9.1.

> 

> Wolfgang

> 

> 

> 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert 

> Bollow

> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40

> An:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
Benedek, Wolfgang

> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)

> Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 

> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100

> "Benedek, Wolfgang ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"

> < <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
wrote:

> 

> > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR 

> > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in 

> > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the 

> > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, 

> > periodic elections etc

> 

> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in 

> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not 

> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and 

> its government democratic is spelled out explicitly.

> 

> > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be 

> > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic 

> > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no 

> > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international 

> > human rights body to my knowledge.

> 

> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic"

> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the 

> same

> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, 

> here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art.
4.

> 

> Greetings,

> Norbert

> 

> > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, 

> > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing 

> > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the 

> > similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More 

> > and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of 

> > Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.

> >

> > Wolfgang Benedek

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
nb at bollow.ch>:

> >

> > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800

> > >David Cake < <mailto:dave at difference.com.au> dave at difference.com.au>
wrote:

> > >

> > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions 

> > >> of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means 

> > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all 

> > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that 

> > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies 

> > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of 

> > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.

> > >

> > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a 

> > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post 

> > >about this when it is available.

> > >

> > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in 

> > >reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" 

> > >in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is 

> > >used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

> > >

> > >Greetings,

> > >Norbert

> > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)  <http://JustNetCoalition.org>
http://JustNetCoalition.org

> > >

> >

> >

> 

> 

> 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/bb236e84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Tue Mar 10 02:04:49 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:04:49 +0800
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
Message-ID: <8262AFF3-62EB-40B6-AAD6-98345AFD3614@difference.com.au>


On 9 Mar 2015, at 5:38 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
> divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
> Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
> 
> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
> it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
> which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
> democratic.

	I think trying to keep the argue at the level of principles is likely to be unhelpful, and to lead to continued disagreement and confusion.

	How things are articulated into actual governance structures is important. FWIW, above either multi-stakeholderism or democracy as a principle I value openness and transparency.

	Democracy has, in practice, become a complex system with many different things required for effective democracy, and we have shown time and again that once you remove openness and transparency from democratic processes, they become corrupted and weakened. We have, for example, the specific examples before us of TTIP and TPPA, opaque and closed processes, largely negotiated by democratic nations, that are promising terrible undemocratic outcomes. On a larger scale we have the mass surveillance machine (all 5 Eyes nations are undeniably democratic). And numerous secret trade and security treaties, numerous programs designed to serve influential elites, and so on.
	Democracy is a term that is both loosely defined and complex, and what exactly is meant by democratic is crucial. As an example of complexity, for example generally democracy is taken to include an independent judiciary, which is selected on meritocratic not democratic grounds in most nations - and despite this, such an institution is considered to be a vital part of democracy to many. A more general issue with what is a democratic is the difference between aggregative and representative ideas vs deliberative - some of us feel that the deliberative function of democracy is crucial, and by having open and transparent policy discussions multi-stakeholder fora are generally supportive of democratic ideals, and the JNC position often seems to hold that the aggregative role of democracy is far more important than the deliberative. Indeed, JNC positions often seem to imply that consensus itself undermines democracy and majoritarian positions, where a minority can more easily be overruled, are to be preferred. Actually having real answers to what we, in practical terms, mean by democracy in a particular context is crucial.

	And conversely I support multi-stakeholder processes when, and because, they are open and transparent. Through ICANN processes I know that positions are argued on the public record, that anyone who wishes can participate (there are barriers to entry, but no gates - the technical understanding of a complex policy area is not easy, but no one barred from gaining it), that there are no back rooms accessible only to lobbyists. When multi-stakeholder processes are not open and transparent (such as some WEF processes) I no longer support them.

> This is often done by insisting on the importance of
> multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.

	I don’t think this is done at all to elevate one principle over another, and I only think it seems so to those who are holding on to a viewpoint in which the two are somehow opposed.
> 
> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
> Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
> involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
> governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
> necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
> principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
> having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
> multistakeholderism.

	In other words - you are creating an argument here, essentially out of nothing. You are defining a matter of principle as being of great importance, you are then defining it in a way

	And further more, JNC members are, from time to time, taking on positions that I consider obviously and grossly detrimental to democracy in the global big picture, and then saying anyone who does not agree with them is against democracy. It is nothing but rhetoric designed to discuss a very different policy position.

> 
> From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
> Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.

	Absolutely. But you need to define what democracy would practically mean in that context, and do so in a way that doesn’t is both practically implementable and meaningfully democratic.
	So, ways in which you would define democratic multistakeholderism that would have the practical effect of weakening the position (especially the soft power position) of democratic nations, and so relatively strengthening authoritarian nations, would not suffice. Positions such as retaining 35 a) of the Tunis Agenda, and other positions that essentially strengthen the role of states, would seem to fail on this criteria. Similarly handing increased power for general Internet governance issues to the ITU.
	Ways of creating a democratic multistakeholderism that involve creating new global governance mechanisms that are likely to be strongly objected to by major states would seem to fail on practical grounds. While I have no objection at all to a situation that involves a significant democratic involvement by the citizens of China, one that would have to bypass the strong undemocratic bias of their state, I can’t see it happening in a useful time frame.
	So please, I, and I am sure many members of civil society, have no objection to the idea of democratic multi-stakeholderism in principle. But I find the approach you are taking here, Norbert, that we should agree on the principle of democracy (without defining what that means) and then a practical solution can be found, doomed - not on grounds of ideological disagreement but on grounds of a basically unsound method. You are trying to manufacture agreement before really defining what we are agreeing on.

	And I certainly have no objection to making existing multi-stakeholder institutions more democratic in operation, for a variety of properties of democratic. There were proposals floating for making ICANN a membership based organisation, for example, which would appear at least on a surface level to be more democratic (though the devil is always in the details). Certainly many accountability reforms would have the effect of making it more democratic in practice.

	Cheers

		David

> 
> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
> those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
> and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
> had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
> government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
> from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
> consensus text along those lines.
> 
> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
> 
> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
> "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
> written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
> viewpoints of both sides.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
>> perspectives:
>> 
>> 
>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
>> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
>> 
>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
>> it as a JNC position, and
>> 
>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
>> 
>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
>> consensus.
>> 
>> 
>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
>> 
>> 
>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of concrete
>> proposals on a significant number of topics.
>> 
>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
>> always possible to reach consensus.
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
>> 
>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders
>> should be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in
>> contrast to purely technical matters where the disagreements are about
>> questions of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
>> solution?")
>> 
>> 
>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
>> 
>> 
>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
>> going around in circles.
>> 
>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a vast
>> body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics. And I
>> would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it as easy
>> to answer it in a satisfactory way.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
>> of this distinction.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, 8 Mar
>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
>>>>> proposals than you do!
>>>> 
>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
>>>> ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
>>> 
>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
>>> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
>>> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
>>> NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
>>> own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
>>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
>>> that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
>>> Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/)
>>> count for anything?
>>> 
>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
>>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
>>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
>>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
>>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
>>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
>>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
>>> legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
>>> 
>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
>>> has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be
>>> said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting
>>> to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with
>>> a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you think you
>>> don't already have a response to, write to me off list and I'll
>>> point you to it.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/925d0eb9/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Tue Mar 10 02:30:23 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:30:23 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99A63972-A90D-4432-B342-5F3AF63BB377@difference.com.au>


On 6 Mar 2015, at 7:20 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will.  My observation is that MS processes do not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involved specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably different interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kinds.

It is certainly true that multi-stakeholder processes do not work well in situations in which consensus absolutely cannot be reached. Conflict and consensus are different things, however - getting a group of conflicted parties together knowing that they only way they can ensure their priorities are represented in the final outcome is by being part of a consensus is a very good mechanism for resolving conflict.


> 
>  My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or stress it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) and proceed as though nothing had occurred – in this way they are achieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to divergent positions and interests.

	It would be helpful if you could point to examples where you think this has occurred.
	I’m not disagreeing per se, there are cases where the situation you describe, or something like it occurs, though I wouldn’t characterise it the same way. For example, when one participant threatens to walk away from a process because they don’t get the outcome they want, then sure, other participants may close ranks to minimise damage to the forum itself, in which all have some investment - but this isn’t always negative.
	I would say the answer here is to ensure that such fora are open enough that the power of ‘insiders’ is minimised, and those who feel their interests would be harmed are able to remedy their concerns by becoming participants.

> 
> 
> Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of effective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the absence of some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing accountability, transparency etc.

I always find the way in which this form of analysis makes civil society participants (many of whom are doing so on a volunteer basis and supporting themselves by other means, and most of whom are chronically under funded and overworked) part of a social/economic elite that have captured the process for their own purposes.
	But of course I agree that we could improve effective accountability and representability, though I acknowledge that the latter is proving difficult in practice.
	But the real issue here is the obvious massive statist bias here - why should we assume that states, many of which have a long history of corruption, and many of which clearly have enormous problems with transparency, are the only effective means of enforcing accountability and transparency? Again, we are asked to believe that states are the only effective means of ensuring these things, but when processes like the TPPA and TTIP are shown as clear massive failures of transparency and accountability, I doubt we will have an answer.

> 
>   In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of value.  Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil society (or government such as those found in many LDC’s for that matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and dominant interests.

	I say only that we will have more chance of getting a better result from open transparent processes than we do from government led trade processes.
	There has to be more than a negative critique of multi-stakeholder processes here - there needs to be a contrasting positive example. So far, the obvious examples of government led processes in the same policy area are pretty much all clearly worse. You have to show an example decision making process that is clearly better, not imagine a process that you think would be better if it existed.

	Regards

		David

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> [MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic pluralism.
> 
> 
> 
> [MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way as democratic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> [MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the possibility of rectification.  With legitimized control by powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification.  Those interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize their individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a phone number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountability and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic decision making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be a very good social trade off to be making.
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping to shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system of government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate us and legitimize powerful interests.
> 
> 
> 
> [MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and structures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean that the aspiration of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly rejected in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) elites.
> 
> 
> 
> I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, even if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
> 
> 
> 
> [MG] yes..
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance.  Is this the official position of APC?
> 
> 
> 
> M
> 
> 
> 
> Shawna
> 
> 
> 
> On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
> 
> >
> 
> > Just a couple of things...
> 
> >
> 
> > An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its
> 
> > willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been
> 
> > trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a
> 
> > qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to
> 
> > one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the
> 
> > context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion
> 
> > should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of
> 
> > democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
> 
> >
> 
> > Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear
> 
> > indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of
> 
> > "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear
> 
> > indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on
> 
> > to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a
> 
> > clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who
> 
> > signed on to this agreement.
> 
> >
> 
> > And please be aware that this is not trivial...
> 
> >
> 
> > The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see
> 
> > MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide
> 
> > variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in
> 
> > security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy"
> 
> > as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of
> 
> > what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global
> 
> > decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
> 
> >
> 
> > The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance
> 
> > by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means that the
> 
> > necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most
> 
> > effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely
> 
> > ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is
> 
> > this APC's preferred position?
> 
> >
> 
> > So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action
> 
> > rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in
> 
> > the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others
> 
> > who are so blithely jumping on the MS
> 
> > bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of
> 
> > multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their
> 
> > own normative structures...?
> 
> >
> 
> > Best,
> 
> >
> 
> > M
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan
> 
> > [ <mailto:shawna at apc.org> mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael
> 
> > Gurstein Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> 
> >  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at
> 
> > UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> >
> 
> > Dear Michael,
> 
> >
> 
> > While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the
> 
> > discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your
> 
> > question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of
> 
> > 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
> 
> >
> 
> > In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been
> 
> > that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various
> 
> > multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it
> 
> > is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support
> 
> > our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively
> 
> > engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights
> 
> > Council.
> 
> >
> 
> > Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing
> 
> > discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced
> 
> > cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation
> 
> > is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
> 
> > governance:
> 
> >
> 
> > "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a
> 
> > means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance
> 
> > that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva
> 
> > Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and
> 
> > prosperous world.”
> 
> >
> 
> > (from our submission:
> 
> >  <http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf>http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf
> 
> > )
> 
> >
> 
> >  There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
> 
> > over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC
> 
> > engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
> 
> >
> 
> > Shawna
> 
> >
> 
> > On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 
> >> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by
> 
> >> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to
> 
> >> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of
> 
> >> "multistakeholderism
> 
> >> < <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/> https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >
> 
> >>
> 
> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
> 
> >> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of
> 
> >> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning"
> 
> >> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the
> 
> >> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally
> 
> >> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil
> 
> >> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide
> 
> >> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I
> 
> >> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent
> 
> >> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being
> 
> >> evolved") in this sphere.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of
> 
> >> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own
> 
> >> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> M
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> -----Original Message----- From:
> 
> >>  <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> 
> >> [ <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
> 
> >> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
> 
> >>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> 
> >> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
> 
> >> the Dots Conference"
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Dear all
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Just an explanation and some context.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
> 
> >> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
> 
> >> secretariat in compiling drafts.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
> 
> >> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC
> 
> >> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
> 
> >> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which
> 
> >> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
> 
> >> reason other than it came during the final session and the
> 
> >> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked
> 
> >> directly to the Study.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
> 
> >> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
> 
> >> report rather than in the outcome statement.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
> 
> >> discussion.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really
> 
> >> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
> 
> >> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the
> 
> >> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for
> 
> >> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the
> 
> >> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very
> 
> >> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so
> 
> >> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly
> 
> >> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This
> 
> >> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be
> 
> >> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of
> 
> >> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
> 
> >> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having
> 
> >> 'democratic'
> 
> >>
> 
> >> in front of multistakeholder.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
> 
> >> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
> 
> >> the text.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder',
> 
> >> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they
> 
> >> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and
> 
> >> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could
> 
> >> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference
> 
> >> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not
> 
> >> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
> 
> >> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
> 
> >> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
> 
> >> number of requests for putting it in.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated
> 
> >> in this way.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
> 
> >> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in
> 
> >> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
> 
> >> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that
> 
> >> anonymity is illegitimate.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in
> 
> >> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the
> 
> >> gains vs. the losses.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
> 
> >> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the
> 
> >> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its
> 
> >> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people
> 
> >> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn,
> 
> >> participate and influence internet-related debates with
> 
> >> policy-makers.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
> 
> >> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
> 
> >> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
> 
> >> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be
> 
> >> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Anriette
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
> 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> 
> >> < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>> wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>> have global significance?
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>> With pleasure.  This is why:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>>  <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to
> 
> >>>> -
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> t
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is
> 
> >>> JNC's
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position
> 
> >>> of
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> JNC.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human
> 
> >>> right,
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be
> 
> >>> democratic.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> follows:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global
> 
> >>> governance
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> democratic *and* participative.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> participative.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> Is that so hard to understand???
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite
> 
> >>> full
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response
> 
> >>> (which
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>  <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> Greetings,
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> Norbert
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>  <http://JustNetCoalition.org> http://JustNetCoalition.org
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> 
> >>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>  <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> ____________________________________________________________ You
> 
> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 
> >>  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings,
> 
> >> visit:  <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/4c93eda3/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/4c93eda3/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Tue Mar 10 03:11:16 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:11:16 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <A0DA9533-E2F4-473D-8704-A076486A24A0@difference.com.au>

Milton summarises the problems with the use of the term democracy without further explanation far better than I did.

+1

On 10 Mar 2015, at 3:34 am, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Wolfgang
> 
> Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental.
> 
> I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more.
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment.
> 
> Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government.
> 
> None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples.
> 
> Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things:
> 
> A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy
> 
> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic
> 
> C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable?
> 
> I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B.
> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow;
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing
>> discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
>> 
>> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
>> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder
>> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all
>> stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the
>> technical community, the academic community and users. The respective
>> roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible
>> manner with reference to the issue under discussion.
>> 
>> 
>> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo
>> rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation
>> of 9.1.
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
>> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang
>> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
>> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
>> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>> 
>>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR
>>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in
>>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the
>>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country,
>>> periodic elections etc
>> 
>> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to
>> governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a
>> very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is
>> spelled out explicitly.
>> 
>>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be
>>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic
>>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no
>>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human
>>> rights body to my knowledge.
>> 
>> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic"
>> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same
>> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are
>> some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,
>>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing
>>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar
>>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and
>>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression
>>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
>>> 
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>>>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of
>>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means
>>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all
>>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that
>>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies
>>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of
>>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
>>>> 
>>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
>>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
>>>> about this when it is available.
>>>> 
>>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting
>>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the
>>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in
>>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/64f98db1/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Mar 10 03:20:27 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:20:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Middle East DNS Forum under way in Amman - Remote
 participation details
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1sOv5siDyL64916iNxHGgeYp8tK2XO2=UdMgzmg9OJNQ@mail.gmail.com>

Missed this yesterday, but I heard it was very good, including a keynote
presentation
<http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2015/03/middle-east-dns-forum-covers-dnssec/>
from
ISOC Europe's Frédéric Donck, Today there will be a session on the IANA
transition at 2pm = 6am NYC time (Noon UTC).

 joly posted: "On Monday/Tuesday March 2-3 2015 the F2C:Freedom to Connect
conference will be held at Civic Hall in NYC. Speakers include: Andrew
Rasiej, Micah Sifry, Cayden Mak, Susan Crawford, Eben Moglen, David P Reed,
Dan Geer, Molly Crabapple, Chris Ritzo, Hilary "


[image: Middle East DNS Forum] <http://mednsf.org/en/>The* Middle East DNS
Forum <http://mednsf.org/en/>* is taking place *Monday/Tuesday March 9-10
2015* at TAG University in *Amman, Jordan*. This first edition of the forum
is expected to be the building block for future annual forums. The end
target of having such an annual forum is to spread the message around and
introduce interested parties to the key players in the industry, thus
leading to a stronger domain name industry in the region. Remote
participation <http://amman2015.mednsf.org/en/remote-participation/> is
available via an Arabic audio stream, plus video and English audio via
Adobe Connect. Amman is 6 hours ahead of NYC (UTC+2)






*What: Middle East DNS Forum <http://mednsf.org/en/>Where: TAG University,
Amman JordanWhen: Monday/Tuesday March 9-10
2015Agenda: http://amman2015.mednsf.org/en/agenda/
<http://amman2015.mednsf.org/en/agenda/>Adobe
Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dnsforum/
<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dnsforum/>Arabic
Audio: http://stream.icann.org:8000/ar-dnsforum.m3u
<http://stream.icann.org:8000/ar-dnsforum.m3u>*

*Twitter: @mednsf <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=mednsf&src=typd>*




*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7629



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/96f9f590/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Tue Mar 10 03:44:22 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 07:44:22 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <A0DA9533-E2F4-473D-8704-A076486A24A0@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
      <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
      <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
      <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
      <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
      <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
      <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
      <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
      <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
      <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
      <20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
      <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
      <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<A0DA9533-E2F4-473D-8704-A076486A24A0@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43579569@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

David,

I was at a conference recently on "Cultures of Accountability: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Current and Future Accountability Mechanisms". If anyone wants to dig into the cultural discourse I am sure Brendan Van Alsenoy and Fanny Coudert would be happy to help.

What I brought with me from that conference was that "democratic accountability" was referred to as a kind of implicit last resort when many of the speakers gave witness of how terribly bad accountability mechanisms worked in their disciplines of study respectively.

I think that the issues here are far more complex than navigating among definitions of "democracy", "transparency" or "openness". I think Milton is right in the sense that most thinking in this field is a confused mosh of perceptions.

Still, every one of us knows exactly what Chaplin was talking about.

Best regards.

//Erik

________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 08:11
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Milton summarises the problems with the use of the term democracy without further explanation far better than I did.

+1

On 10 Mar 2015, at 3:34 am, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Wolfgang
>
> Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental.
>
> I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more.
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment.
>
> Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government.
>
> None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples.
>
> Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things:
>
> A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy
>
> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic
>
> C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable?
>
> I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B.
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow;
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing
>> discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
>>
>> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
>> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder
>> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all
>> stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the
>> technical community, the academic community and users. The respective
>> roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible
>> manner with reference to the issue under discussion.
>>
>>
>> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo
>> rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation
>> of 9.1.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
>> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang
>> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
>> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
>> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>>
>>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR
>>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in
>>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the
>>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country,
>>> periodic elections etc
>>
>> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to
>> governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a
>> very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is
>> spelled out explicitly.
>>
>>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be
>>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic
>>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no
>>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human
>>> rights body to my knowledge.
>>
>> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic"
>> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same
>> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are
>> some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,
>>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing
>>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar
>>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and
>>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression
>>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>>>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of
>>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means
>>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all
>>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that
>>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies
>>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of
>>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
>>>>
>>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
>>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
>>>> about this when it is available.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting
>>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the
>>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in
>>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.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 joly at punkcast.com  Tue Mar 10 03:47:52 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:47:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Middle East DNS Forum under way in Amman - Remote
 participation details
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk1sOv5siDyL64916iNxHGgeYp8tK2XO2=UdMgzmg9OJNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk1sOv5siDyL64916iNxHGgeYp8tK2XO2=UdMgzmg9OJNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1Ek_yFiDz2UcLOC0hXDxHNPts193U-QOuHU7O-6iuxGQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> Today there will be a session on the IANA transition at 2pm = 6am NYC time
> (Noon UTC).
>

​My bad, that would be 8am EDT​​



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/0a5a6e61/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Tue Mar 10 04:13:35 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:13:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
 <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
 <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
 <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
 <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
 <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Dear all,

just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate international cooperation in the economic and social field can be considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the world according to the principle of geographical representation, the largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play its role. In  IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations and groupings is very limited, the more so as the real decisions are taken there.

Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be done for multistakeholderism in its present form.

Wolfgang Benedek

Von: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10
An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>, "nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>
Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints


I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very informed commentary with most of which I agree...



-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints



Dear Norbert,



I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the results. One could also argue as more democratic the  relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.



[MG] agree





Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent about the objectives of the different partners.



[MG] agree







To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state level among citizens.



[MG] agree





We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.



[MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.  Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.



At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood in its broadest and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve “further democratization” of existing institutions but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned that they would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.



M







Wolfgang Benedek





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          t









Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>:



>Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant

>divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to

>Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:

>

>a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by

>elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and

>it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status

>which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be

>democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of

>multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.

>

>b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that

>Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may

>involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet

>governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would

>necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the

>principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as

>having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of

>multistakeholderism.

>

>From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who

>hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a

>pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for

>Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.

>

>Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of

>those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy

>and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who

>had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US

>government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request

>from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of

>consensus text along those lines.

>

>As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.

>

>I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of

>"pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have

>written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the

>viewpoints of both sides.

>

>Greetings,

>Norbert

>

>

>On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100

>Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:

>

>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete

>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't

>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that

>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of

>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it

>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related

>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)

>> perspectives:

>>

>>

>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to

>> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that

>>

>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting

>> it as a JNC position, and

>>

>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of

>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and

>>

>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for

>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,

>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach

>> consensus.

>>

>>

>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact

>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it

>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder

>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"

>>

>>

>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of

>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.

>>

>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"

>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing

>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not

>> always possible to reach consensus.

>>

>>

>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I

>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals

>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public

>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that

>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.

>>

>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean

>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts

>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should

>> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to

>> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions

>> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better

>> solution?")

>>

>>

>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to

>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,

>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.

>>

>>

>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the

>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in

>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in

>> going around in circles.

>>

>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially

>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that

>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"

>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a

>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.

>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it

>> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.

>>

>> Greetings,

>> Norbert

>>

>>

>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make

>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the

>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy

>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description

>> of this distinction.

>>

>>

>>

>> On Sun, 8 Mar

>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:

>>

>> > On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:

>> > >

>> > > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm

>> > > <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:

>> > >

>> > >> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it

>> > >> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the

>> > >> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete

>> > >> proposals than you do!

>> > >

>> > > Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,

>> > > like I have given a link to my proposal?

>> > > ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)

>> >

>> > If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up

>> > on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,

>> > higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to

>> > NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my

>> > own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published

>> > over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body

>> > that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under

>> > Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-

>> > surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none

>> > of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.

>> >

>>http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing

>>-ia

>>na/)

>> > count for anything?

>> >

>> > If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good

>> > multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started

>> > calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than

>> > proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can

>> > expect news about another effort to produce something like this in

>> > the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting

>> > that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon

>> > and I'm not going to steal its thunder.

>> >

>> > Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real

>> > point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not

>> > satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend

>> > statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically

>> > legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.

>> >

>> > I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it

>> > has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly

>> > be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm

>> > starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list

>> > mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you

>> > think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list

>> > and I'll point you to it.

>> >

>>

>>

>

>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/295f04cf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Mar 10 04:25:48 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:25:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] Democracy (was Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
 of "Connecting the Dots Conference")
In-Reply-To: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
	<54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
	<7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
	<54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
	<38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
	<20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
	<D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20150310092548.6f531be9@quill>

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:34:45 +0000
Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multistakeholder" doesn't
> solve the problem. It is more fundamental.
> 
> I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder
> a dozen times, if not more. As I have pointed out repeatedly, and
> Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less
> its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. 

I strongly disagree.

Whenever a word has a well-established literal meaning, and it is
commonly used in the sense of that meaning, then it has that meaning
everywhere where that literal meaning makes sense, and where it is not
clear from the context that the word is meant in a different sense.

The literal meaning of δημοκρατία (dēmokratía), in modern language
"democracy", is that "it's the people who have the power to rule". This
is since ancient times seen in contrast to "the rule of an elite", the
ancient Greek term for the latter being ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratía).

How democratic governance, in the sense of that literal meaning, is to
be implemented in an increasingly globalized and increasingly ICT-based
world (of which the Internet is nowadays already a rather central
aspect, and it is widely expected that the centrality of the Internet
will continue to grow), that is something that requires discussion and
consensus building.

In my view, this needed discussion and consensus building should be
based on first of all agreeing that governance is needed to some
extent, and that to the extent that governance is needed, it must be
democratic in the sense of the literal meaning of the word
"democratic" as stated above.

> Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a
> defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with
> territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to
> them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences
> of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of
> democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and
> to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of
> government.   

That is a very good summary of how democracy is implemented in the
context of a national state. 

> None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the
> internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global
> constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised
> by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and
> effectuating the preferences of a global population.

I agree that trying to directly translate "how democracy is implemented
in the context of a national state" to the Internet would not make a lot
of sense, and to the extent that it might partly make sense, it would
not be desirable to do so. The resulting system of "Internet government"
would not in any worthwhile way be a democratic system.

> The territorial
> division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically
> governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the
> increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on
> immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. 

I certainly agree there is a lot which goes badly in democratic
decision-making.

Already Plato pointed this out in ancient Athens in very impressive
ways, and he suggested the alternative of putting an elite of
philosophers in power.

Since those ancient times, the proponents of democracy have always been
aware of the arguments of Plato and of those who have followed in his
footsteps, consciously rejecting those arguments. In fact it's the
central premise of democracy that in spite of these problems with
democratic decision-making, putting any kind of elite in power must
nevertheless absolutely be avoid. There are very good reasons for this:
Even though putting an elite in power might lead to more rational
decision making, even then that (more rational) decision making
capacity would be exercised primarily according to the interests and
according to the (necessarily limited) knowledge and experiences of the
members of the elite.

In fact much of what goes wrong in the governance of national states
which are democratic (or which at least claim to be democratic) can be
blamed on the fact that even in such states (despite all the checks and
balances and other good countermeasures against elites gaining
unreasonable power) there are often still elites which gain a lot of
power and abuse it for their own gain; the resulting anger of the
people is then exploited by populists.

The way to improve political systems in order to reduce this kind of
phenomenon is not to give up on the ideal of democracy, but to
implement it more effectively, so that there will be less abuse of
power by elites, and therefore less public anger, and therefore less
opportunity for populists who will try to exploit such anger whenever
they get the chance.

I believe that a very promising opportunity for implementing democracy
more effectively is available through the Internet and through the
logic tree methods of Eli Goldratt's Theory of Constraints, ideally
with some adaptations of the latter to make them even more suitable
for supporting public political discourse being conducted via the
Internet: I see great opportunities for improving the quality and depth
and inclusiveness of public discourse, which will do a lot to make
various structures of governance, including formal state-based
structures of democracy, more democratic in the sense of reducing the
degree to which governance is driven and controlled by elites.

> Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC

Where is any "appropriation of the term 'democratic' by JNC"???

Using a word in the sense of its well-established literal meaning is
simply using the word.

Just like many others are also using the word.

While it is true that we are pro-democracy, there are many other
people and groups who are also pro-democracy.

Even here on this list, where there is a lot of hostility towards
pro-democracy ideas and towards the more active advocates of
pro-democracy ideas, it is not only JNC members who argue in favor of
democracy.

> can mean any of these things: 
>
> A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that
> "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be
> against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is
> democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure
> democracy 
> 
> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of
> existing states over internet governance, which means not only
> "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also
> the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if
> 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic
> 
> C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic
> institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a
> globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what
> form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how
> they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about
> "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of
> us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law
> do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? 

Curiously, the literal meaning of the word is not even included in
this, obviously highly politically motivated, list of possible
meanings. That in spite of my repeated insistence over the past few
days, here on this very mailing list, that we mean the word in its
literal sense and not as code for something else.

> I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of
> these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is
> basically represented by B. 

I assure you that our thinking is not "a confused mosh", and I would
expect the above discussion to make this abundantly clear.

If the concern of possible misinterpretation of our "'democratic'
advocacy" to the effect of your point "B" is a real concern (as opposed
to mere populistic scaremongering), please propose words to express the
literal meaning of "democratic" in a way that will avoid that risk of
misinterpretation which you claim exists on the basis of using the
word "democratic".

There is unavoidably always the risk that some people will misinterpret
words, for example because they were misinformed about the perspective
and intentions of those who use the words, or because they act in bad
faith with an intention of distorting the words of political opponents.
This risk can be minimized by using words which are as clear as
possible, but it can never be completely avoided.

On the other hand, some choices of words are simply not clear enough
even in the context of well-informed good-faith dialogue in which each
side makes a reasonable and honest effort at trying to understand what
the other side is saying, and responses are given on the basis of that.

I don't think that the current wave of claims about the meaning of the
word "democratic" not being clear enough is justified, but to the extent
that such claims might be justified, that should be a simple enough
problem to solve: I will be happy to start using any word or phrase
which expresses the literal meaning of the word "democratic" more
clearly than the word "democratic" itself does.

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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Tue Mar 10 05:18:30 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:18:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <5FBE4D2E-A6A2-4BF2-A7C8-158E21856F3E@theglobaljournal.net>

Wolfgang,

Indeed ECOSOC is one critical part of the early reflection behind the creation of the UN -  basically an infant of the second world war, and mostly discussed among allies in the US, and for the most part in San Francisco (the then Silicon Valley of global governance). ECOSOC still has an interesting "investigative" role not to be underestimated, and the UN secretariat-general could rely more on it, rather than on its army of special advisers. So much in agreement with your first paragraph, and its reflection regarding groupings of powers. Are the latter very similar to what we see in public policy decision making related to Internet?

When we discuss democratic principles, applied to IG, why don't we 
- look in MSism deficits as well, and there are plenty of them? Some in the lists are so rapidly trying to kill the simple presence of the word "democratic", à la manière the US forbade the introduction of the word "Internet" in the revised treaty during WCIT12.
- Should we - because of these deficits - disqualify the democratic idea, and replace it by a MSist "thinking" that lacks serious basic principals, shows so much more flaws, and seems to have the greatest difficulty to evolve from within (think of status quo, similar to what you mention regarding the trading powers)? We know that MSism has serious issues in terms of accountability, transparency, fair representation, legitimacy, in the specific field of public policy decision making. I see the road from MSism to a more balanced IG much more difficult to walk than starting from a stance based upon democratic principals. At least in CS perspective and reflection.

Democracy has too much "baggage", was it stated. But MSism has no define principals and lots of vested interests to drive it where some want it to go. We all remember the "equal footing" stupidity. We all know about the "rough consensus" story to govern tech start-ups. And we see less and less resistance from CS, ready to abandon the democratic challenge and principals because now it would have too much baggage. For all the people who died on behalf of democracy, this is a call to take back their life for peanuts.

The champion of war of words is the US. From advertising to politics, they deserve our respect. Academics still call it propaganda sometime. The US has the power to enforce its choice of words. Now we have "Freedom of expression", even though pondered by the NSA effect. We have "multistakeholderism" which is to IG what ketch-up is to McDonald. Let's remember that the ketch-up never invented the big mac, neither multistakeholderism did the Internet.

It is amusing to think of Milton's concluding address back in Istanbul with his grandiose utopian libertarian call for a global digital citizenry. Nowadays, he seems to be afraid by his own dream turned nightmare. Because someone dropped a little democratic spice on it. His dream is suddenly being spoiled.

More seriously, we should not give up our efforts and imagination to use and rely on democratic principals, because the task is daunting, or because some are usurping the word. At least we have a strong compass, one that MSist has not - except its automatism for pointing every eye back to the US for permission. This is the largest failure of MSism. It lacks innovation, imagination, because it has no strong seat (except market shares and surveillance bonus thanks to the ICANN concierge who has monopole over indirecting names to IPs). The tenants of MSism forget that even in the US, part of its foundations are made of democratic principals. If MSism would embrace a democratic approach, then we would have a very different conversation. But as proved in Paris, even that, the US diplomats are not ready to take a chance to accept. By refusing to clearly endorse democratic principles as fundaments in our discussion, we endanger any future evolution by keeping the reflection at a ground-zero of governance, where the powerfuls are able to "handle" the Internet Game.

JC

Post-Scriptum: If I may, I copy/paste Barry Shein under creative common license:

So the issues of multistakeholderism are:

1. How are the units of enfranchisement chosen or recognized?

2. How do they act? Democratically is one choice.

3. How is a body of multistakeholders coordinated and governed?

I think at this point the vagaries lie in #1, how are the units of
enfranchisement defined in a multistakeholder governing structure?

Are they self-defined? Whoever stands and claims to be represent a
stakeholder group must be recognized, as one extreme?

Are they defined by some higher authority such as an organizing
document or body to whom you must apply to be recognized as a
stakeholder for the purposes of enfranchisement?

Given some definitions for #1 one might be able to proceed to the
other definitional points.







Le 10 mars 2015 à 09:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) a écrit :

> Dear all,
> 
> just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate international cooperation in the economic and social field can be considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the world according to the principle of geographical representation, the largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play its role. In  IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations and groupings is very limited, the more so as the real decisions are taken there. 
> 
> Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be done for multistakeholderism in its present form.
> 
> Wolfgang Benedek
> 
> Von: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10
> An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>, "nb at bollow.ch" <nb at bollow.ch>
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
> 
> I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very informed commentary with most of which I agree...
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
> Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
>  
> Dear Norbert,
>  
> I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the results. One could also argue as more democratic the  relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.
>  
> [MG] agree
>  
>  
> Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent about the objectives of the different partners.
>  
> [MG] agree
>  
>  
>  
> To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state level among citizens.
>  
> [MG] agree
>  
>  
> We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.
>  
> [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.  Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.
>  
> At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood in its broadest and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve “further democratization” of existing institutions but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned that they would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.
>  
> M
>  
>  
>  
> Wolfgang Benedek
>  
>  
>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            t
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>  
> >Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
> >divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
> >Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
> > 
> >a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
> >elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
> >it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
> >which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
> >democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
> >multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
> > 
> >b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
> >Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
> >involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
> >governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
> >necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
> >principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
> >having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
> >multistakeholderism.
> > 
> >From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
> >hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
> >pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
> >Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
> > 
> >Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
> >those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
> >and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
> >had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
> >government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
> >from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
> >consensus text along those lines.
> > 
> >As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
> > 
> >I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
> >"pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
> >written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
> >viewpoints of both sides.
> > 
> >Greetings,
> >Norbert
> > 
> > 
> >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
> >Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> >> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
> >> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
> >> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
> >> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
> >> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
> >> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
> >> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
> >> perspectives:
> >>
> >>
> >> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
> >> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
> >>
> >> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
> >> it as a JNC position, and
> >>
> >> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
> >> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
> >>
> >> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
> >> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
> >> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
> >> consensus.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
> >> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> >> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
> >> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of
> >> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.
> >>
> >> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
> >> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
> >> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
> >> always possible to reach consensus.
> >>
> >>
> >> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
> >> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
> >> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
> >> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
> >> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
> >>
> >> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
> >> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
> >> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should
> >> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to
> >> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions
> >> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
> >> solution?")
> >>
> >>
> >> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
> >> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
> >> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
> >>
> >>
> >> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
> >> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
> >> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
> >> going around in circles.
> >>
> >> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
> >> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
> >> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
> >> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a
> >> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.
> >> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it
> >> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Norbert
> >>
> >>
> >> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
> >> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
> >> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
> >> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
> >> of this distinction.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 8 Mar
> >> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm
> >> > > <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> >> > >> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
> >> > >> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
> >> > >> proposals than you do!
> >> > >
> >> > > Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
> >> > > like I have given a link to my proposal?
> >> > > ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
> >> >
> >> > If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
> >> > on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
> >> > higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
> >> > NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
> >> > own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
> >> > over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
> >> > that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
> >> > Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
> >> > surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
> >> > of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
> >> >
> >>http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing
> >>-ia
> >>na/)
> >> > count for anything?
> >> >
> >> > If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
> >> > multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
> >> > calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
> >> > proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
> >> > expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
> >> > the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
> >> > that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
> >> > and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
> >> > point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
> >> > satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
> >> > statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
> >> > legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
> >> >
> >> > I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
> >> > has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly
> >> > be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm
> >> > starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list
> >> > mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you
> >> > think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list
> >> > and I'll point you to it.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
>  
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/8eec96be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Mar 10 09:13:56 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:13:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>

Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't need
these institutions and that we should not participate in them and make
them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as you say,
ignore their democratic deficits.

These deficits exist at national level as well.

Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing
intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.

Anriette


On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate international cooperation in the economic and social field can be considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the world according to the principle of geographical representation, the largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play its role. In  IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations and groupings is very limited, the more so as the
  real dec
isions are taken there.
> 
> Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be done for multistakeholderism in its present form.
> 
> Wolfgang Benedek
> 
> Von: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10
> An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>, "nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
> 
> 
> I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very informed commentary with most of which I agree...
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
> Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Norbert Bollow
> Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Norbert,
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the results. One could also argue as more democratic the  relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.
> 
> 
> 
> [MG] agree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent about the objectives of the different partners.
> 
> 
> 
> [MG] agree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state level among citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> [MG] agree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.
> 
> 
> 
> [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.  Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood in its broadest and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve “further democratization” of existing institutions but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned that they would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfgang Benedek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>:
> 
> 
> 
>> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
> 
>> divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
> 
>> Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
> 
>>
> 
>> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
> 
>> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
> 
>> it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
> 
>> which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
> 
>> democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
> 
>> multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
> 
>>
> 
>> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
> 
>> Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
> 
>> involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
> 
>> governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
> 
>> necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
> 
>> principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
> 
>> having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
> 
>> multistakeholderism.
> 
>>
> 
>>From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
> 
>> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
> 
>> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
> 
>> Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
> 
>>
> 
>> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
> 
>> those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
> 
>> and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
> 
>> had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
> 
>> government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
> 
>>from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
> 
>> consensus text along those lines.
> 
>>
> 
>> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
> 
>>
> 
>> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
> 
>> "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
> 
>> written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
> 
>> viewpoints of both sides.
> 
>>
> 
>> Greetings,
> 
>> Norbert
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
> 
>> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
> 
>>
> 
>>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
> 
>>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
> 
>>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
> 
>>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
> 
>>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
> 
>>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
> 
>>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
> 
>>> perspectives:
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
> 
>>> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
> 
>>>
> 
>>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
> 
>>> it as a JNC position, and
> 
>>>
> 
>>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
> 
>>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
> 
>>>
> 
>>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
> 
>>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
> 
>>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
> 
>>> consensus.
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
> 
>>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> 
>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
> 
>>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of
> 
>>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.
> 
>>>
> 
>>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
> 
>>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
> 
>>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
> 
>>> always possible to reach consensus.
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
> 
>>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
> 
>>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
> 
>>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
> 
>>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
> 
>>>
> 
>>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
> 
>>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
> 
>>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should
> 
>>> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to
> 
>>> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions
> 
>>> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
> 
>>> solution?")
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
> 
>>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
> 
>>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
> 
>>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
> 
>>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
> 
>>> going around in circles.
> 
>>>
> 
>>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
> 
>>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
> 
>>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
> 
>>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a
> 
>>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.
> 
>>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it
> 
>>> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.
> 
>>>
> 
>>> Greetings,
> 
>>> Norbert
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
> 
>>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
> 
>>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
> 
>>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
> 
>>> of this distinction.
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> On Sun, 8 Mar
> 
>>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
> 
>>>
> 
>>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm
> 
>>>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> 
>>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
> 
>>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
> 
>>>>>> proposals than you do!
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
> 
>>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
> 
>>>>> ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
> 
>>>> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
> 
>>>> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
> 
>>>> NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
> 
>>>> own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
> 
>>>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
> 
>>>> that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
> 
>>>> Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
> 
>>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
> 
>>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing
> 
>>> -ia
> 
>>> na/)
> 
>>>> count for anything?
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
> 
>>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
> 
>>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
> 
>>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
> 
>>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
> 
>>>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
> 
>>>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
> 
>>>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
> 
>>>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
> 
>>>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
> 
>>>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
> 
>>>> legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
> 
>>>> has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly
> 
>>>> be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm
> 
>>>> starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list
> 
>>>> mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you
> 
>>>> think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list
> 
>>>> and I'll point you to it.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 10 09:42:56 2015
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:42:56 +0000
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
 <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
 <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
 <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
 <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20150310134255.8061072.34095.42442@mail.utoronto.ca>

I agree strongly too, I think Wolfgang has made a very valuable contribution to this discussion. I must admit that I skip a lot of this thread  because I feel that the passion we expend arguing with one another over these issues might be better spent pushing for improvements in the organizations we are discussing.   Glad I popped in to read this one, thanks!
Stephanie Perrin

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:15 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Reply To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints


Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't need
these institutions and that we should not participate in them and make
them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as you say,
ignore their democratic deficits.

These deficits exist at national level as well.

Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing
intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.

Anriette


On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate international cooperation in the economic and social field can be considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the world according to the principle of geographical representation, the largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play its role. In IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations and groupings is very limited, the more so as the
real dec
isions are taken there.
>
> Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be done for multistakeholderism in its present form.
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
> Von: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> Datum: Montag, 09. M�rz 2015 15:10
> An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>, "nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
>
>
> I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very informed commentary with most of which I agree...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
> Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Norbert Bollow
> Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
>
>
>
> Dear Norbert,
>
>
>
> I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the results. One could also argue as more democratic the relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.
>
>
>
> [MG] agree
>
>
>
>
>
> Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent about the objectives of the different partners.
>
>
>
> [MG] agree
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state level among citizens.
>
>
>
> [MG] agree
>
>
>
>
>
> We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.
>
>
>
> [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert. Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.
>
>
>
> At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived from and legitimated by the \u201cwill of the people\u201d understood in its broadest and most inclusive meaning. Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve \u201cfurther democratization\u201d of existing institutions but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for institutions yet to be created. That is why the USG is so concerned that they would draw a red-line around \u201cdemocracy\u201d as a way of characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>
>
>
>
> t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>:
>
>
>
>> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
>
>> divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
>
>> Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
>
>>
>
>> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
>
>> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
>
>> it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
>
>> which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
>
>> democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
>
>> multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
>
>>
>
>> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
>
>> Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
>
>> involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
>
>> governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
>
>> necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
>
>> principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
>
>> having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
>
>> multistakeholderism.
>
>>
>
>>From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
>
>> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
>
>> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
>
>> Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
>
>>
>
>> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
>
>> those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
>
>> and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
>
>> had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
>
>> government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
>
>>from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
>
>> consensus text along those lines.
>
>>
>
>> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
>
>>
>
>> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
>
>> "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
>
>> written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
>
>> viewpoints of both sides.
>
>>
>
>> Greetings,
>
>> Norbert
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
>
>> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
>
>>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
>
>>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
>
>>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
>
>>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
>
>>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
>
>>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
>
>>> perspectives:
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
>
>>> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
>
>>>
>
>>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
>
>>> it as a JNC position, and
>
>>>
>
>>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
>
>>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
>
>>>
>
>>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
>
>>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
>
>>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
>
>>> consensus.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
>
>>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>
>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
>
>>> people. In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of
>
>>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.
>
>>>
>
>>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
>
>>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
>
>>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
>
>>> always possible to reach consensus.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
>
>>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
>
>>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
>
>>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
>
>>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
>
>>>
>
>>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
>
>>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
>
>>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should
>
>>> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to
>
>>> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions
>
>>> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
>
>>> solution?")
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
>
>>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
>
>>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
>
>>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
>
>>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
>
>>> going around in circles.
>
>>>
>
>>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
>
>>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
>
>>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
>
>>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a
>
>>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.
>
>>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it
>
>>> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.
>
>>>
>
>>> Greetings,
>
>>> Norbert
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
>
>>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
>
>>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
>
>>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
>
>>> of this distinction.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> On Sun, 8 Mar
>
>>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm
>
>>>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>
>>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
>
>>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people. In fact, we have more concrete
>
>>>>>> proposals than you do!
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
>
>>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
>
>>>>> ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
>
>>>>
>
>>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
>
>>>> on. Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/). For a less academic,
>
>>>> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
>
>>>> NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs). For my
>
>>>> own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
>
>>>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
>
>>>> that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
>
>>>> Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
>
>>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts. And do none
>
>>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
>
>>>>
>
>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing
>
>>> -ia
>
>>> na/)
>
>>>> count for anything?
>
>>>>
>
>>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
>
>>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
>
>>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
>
>>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
>
>>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
>
>>>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
>
>>>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
>
>>>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
>
>>>> point, right? The problem that you really have is that you're not
>
>>>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
>
>>>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
>
>>>> legitimate. So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
>
>>>> has been going around in circles. Everything that could possibly
>
>>>> be said between us on this topic, has been - many times. I'm
>
>>>> starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list
>
>>>> mails with a link to that. For now, if there is anything that you
>
>>>> think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list
>
>>>> and I'll point you to it.
>
>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/9b824fab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: unnamed
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/9b824fab/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Mar 10 09:54:04 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:54:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <B19C6215-24F7-4F7E-8B03-2422E03B8047@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC2189.601000 0@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <8B99A046-8DB9-481E-AB7E-FC501F9FFE88@theglobaljournal.net> <14bfa05b508.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <B19C6215-24F7-4F7E-8B03-2422E03B8047@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <54FEF77C.4010405@cafonso.ca>

Was this between you and Suresh? Why post on the list then? We do not 
need to know about your mutual secrets... :-)

--c.a.

On 08-03-15 18:34, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
> Suresh,
>
> One question between you and me : are you that familiar with such animal
> as you sound expert with /caqueting/and trolling.  I just realize we
> have a lot more to learn from you. Such a cute little animal indeed,
> with only one leg, one eye, one key idea : the world is divided in
> multi-stakeholderism - or should we call it expanded democracy as
> Jeanette defines it- and Multi-la-lateralism. Any strabismus issue? Does
> this animal still have a brain, unless it doesn't need it anymore? We'll
> keep this for the off-line humor chat-room and our MSist freak show.
>
> Thanks for your insight and reflection.
>
> JC
>
>
>
> Le 8 mars 2015 à 16:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>
>> Amazing. A third way that still works out in favor of the multilateral
>> advocates
>>
>> If it walks like a multilateral duck, if it quacks like a multilateral
>> duck..
>>
>> On March 8, 2015 9:01:14 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>
>>>> The merits of democracy are not being argued (GREAT NEWS!!) here as
>>>> much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a
>>>> multilateral context in UN circles.
>>>>
>>> Solely? No. This is solely your assumption.
>>> In a multilateral context? No, wrong again. One problem that do have
>>> MSists is their dear denial of any role to governments. MSits
>>> favorite sport is governmental bashing (except for USG, the good guy
>>> of their story).
>>> In UN circles. No. Most of its use happens outside the UN, in civil life.
>>>
>>>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.
>>>>
>>> Would it be "through consensus" democracies would have gone no way. A
>>> majority, made by honest voting in a clear constitutional framework,
>>> can only exercise the will of the people. A consensus can be a good
>>> warning paving the way to a new collective rule, still a vote might
>>> often turn it into something that will be respected, transparent and
>>> accountable. Consensus is a very vague process, easily flawed. Rough
>>> consensus is even worse. Again governance is no to be built on
>>> techies's philosophy of daily practice. Consensus related to
>>> governance fits to capos and rubber barons. Not to public policy
>>> making (which is where we do have a fight).
>>>
>>>> The question here is what political significance will get attached
>>>> to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that
>>>> explicitly favors multilateral governance structures.
>>>>
>>> Especially when its very existence is denied by MSits who, amusingly,
>>> claimed to be MSits for the sake of democracy. MSits know better what
>>> the people need.
>>>
>>> No, JNC is not favoring Multilateral governance. This another
>>> assumption is a lie. JNC is advocating a third way. Most MSists are
>>> bodyguards to the status-quo. We see it in any list, any venue. We
>>> have seen it again during the connecting the dots, or the Dotting the
>>> I's, as Louis Pouzin put it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 8 mars 2015 à 14:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>>>
>>>> The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the
>>>> tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context
>>>> in UN circles.
>>>>
>>>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as
>>>> democratic. The question here is what political significance will
>>>> get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a
>>>> grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures.
>>>>
>>>> On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik
>>>> <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu
>>>> <mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I
>>>>> think the underlying understanding is congruent with what
>>>>> Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen
>>>>> recently gave in New Zealand athttp://linux.conf.au/. I point the
>>>>> video to the part where transparency, participation and
>>>>> non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions that grew
>>>>> out of technical work on making the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of
>>>>> transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration,
>>>>> they are themselves a social and political program".
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet
>>>>> governance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference
>>>>> of connected dots?
>>>>>
>>>>> //Erik
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>[bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net]
>>>>> on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
>>>>> *Sent:*Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16
>>>>> *To:*governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang";
>>>>> Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits
>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course, the main question still is: what is your
>>>>> Internet-related global public policy decision making model?(Or do
>>>>> you have a case that Internet related global policy making is not
>>>>> needed, or that it is happening quite fine?)
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same
>>>>> role as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or
>>>>> on an equal footing,  in Internet-related global policy decision
>>>>> making -  that is enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing
>>>>> contentions be put behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that
>>>>> difficult? Why do people choke on making this simple assertion,
>>>>> which would clearly follow from simple democratic principles and
>>>>> ideals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are
>>>>> evident here, which so many find so unsightly?
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them)
>>>>> that they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come
>>>>> back immediately on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points
>>>>> of differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long
>>>>> email exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie
>>>>> assertions, and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political
>>>>> talk here, and seek closing differences, and if we cant, at least
>>>>> know what the precise differences are. If we can commit ourself to
>>>>> this concise methodology, we will be making progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and  some
>>>>>> other emails of a similar kind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut
>>>>>> the circularity with some specifics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is
>>>>>> MSism (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no
>>>>>> longer be used in IG docs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an
>>>>>> impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively
>>>>>> insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others
>>>>>> thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent
>>>>>> non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is
>>>>>> the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot,
>>>>>> and is positively dismayed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and
>>>>>> focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc
>>>>>> about with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one
>>>>>> and a half to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or
>>>>>> were some people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you
>>>>>> really were in the middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this
>>>>>> gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will always be
>>>>>> making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets
>>>>>> please be fair here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has
>>>>>> said at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the
>>>>>> use of the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from
>>>>>> the document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad?
>>>>>> There would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is
>>>>>> direct question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people
>>>>>> think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term.
>>>>>> That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other
>>>>>> hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened
>>>>>> if the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main
>>>>>> issue here. Anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> discussion is bizarr.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
>>>>>>> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity
>>>>>>> building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they
>>>>>>> communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a
>>>>>>> "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal
>>>>>>> partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and
>>>>>>> options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded
>>>>>>> from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement
>>>>>>> on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with
>>>>>>> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the
>>>>>>> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making
>>>>>>> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and
>>>>>>> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
>>>>>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive
>>>>>>> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states
>>>>>>> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on
>>>>>>> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders.
>>>>>>> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move
>>>>>>> forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting
>>>>>>> model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
>>>>>>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a
>>>>>>> consensus on
>>>>>>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
>>>>>>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
>>>>>>> advocating for a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
>>>>>>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my
>>>>>>> quotes from Mr.
>>>>>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
>>>>>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
>>>>>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
>>>>>>> US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have
>>>>>>> sufficient
>>>>>>> comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
>>>>>>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
>>>>>>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
>>>>>>> either in theory or in practice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>>>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
>>>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>>>>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>>>>>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
>>>>>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
>>>>>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
>>>>>>> needs to be developed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
>>>>>>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
>>>>>>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
>>>>>>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
>>>>>>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
>>>>>>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
>>>>>>> not taken up at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
>>>>>>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
>>>>>>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
>>>>>>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
>>>>>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
>>>>>>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
>>>>>>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
>>>>>>> international documents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>>>>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of
>>>>>>>> "democracy"  it wasn't
>>>>>>>> simply a
>>>>>>>> matter of the concept
>>>>>>>> "not making it into the final
>>>>>>>> document" but
>>>>>>>> rather that those involved
>>>>>>>> made the clear political choice to promote
>>>>>>>> "multistakeholderism" and
>>>>>>>> suppress "democracy".
>>>>>>>> M
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From:<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf
>>>>>>> Of Norbert
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Klein
>>>>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>>>>>>> To:<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance]
>>>>>>>> [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30
>>>>>>>> PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>>>>>>>> (<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>  wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>> a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the
>>>>>>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is
>>>>>>>>> important to
>>>>>>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the
>>>>>>>>> conference was to
>>>>>>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and
>>>>>>>>> advise on the
>>>>>>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several
>>>>>>>>> plenary and
>>>>>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>>>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make
>>>>>>>>> it into the
>>>>>>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is
>>>>>>>>> all work in
>>>>>>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>>>>>>> only partly
>>>>>>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were
>>>>>>>>> elaborated
>>>>>>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in
>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>> deepen their understanding.
>>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>>>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>>>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>>>>>>>> formalities like
>>>>>>>> "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> partly included."
>>>>>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a
>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>> importance and weight could
>>>>>>>> be lined up with "democracy." I
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> appreciate it if you, as a
>>>>>>>> participant in this UNESCO conference, could
>>>>>>>> share some of these
>>>>>>>> "other concepts" which were also not, or
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> partially, included.
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>> Norbert Klein
>>>>>>>> Cambodia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To 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 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 09:59:58 2015
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:59:58 +0000
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150310134255.8061072.34095.42442@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
	<20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
	<D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
	<D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
	<20150310134255.8061072.34095.42442@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPFbbEVAUuDqgen1hJstHrx5Lzd-mLR0eOrhxPzwmW+Ubw@mail.gmail.com>

Strongly agree with Wolfgang. Reflect what i see in public decision making
process related to internet and it governance.





WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh


On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>  I agree strongly too, I think Wolfgang has made a very valuable
> contribution to this discussion. I must admit that I skip a lot of this
> thread  because I feel that the passion we expend arguing with one another
> over these issues might be better spent pushing for improvements in the
> organizations we are discussing.   Glad I popped in to read this one,
> thanks!
>  Stephanie Perrin
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>    *From: *Anriette Esterhuysen
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:15 AM
> *To: *governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Reply To: *governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
> viewpoints
>
> Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't need
> these institutions and that we should not participate in them and make
> them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as you say,
> ignore their democratic deficits.
>
> These deficits exist at national level as well.
>
> Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing
> intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance
> institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate
> international cooperation in the economic and social field can be
> considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the world
> according to the principle of geographical representation, the largest
> group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play its role. In
> IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still has a blocking
> minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but in practice hardly
> any decisions are possible against the major trading powers. The ITU I do
> not have to explain here. The main decisions in international economic
> affairs are taken not in the UN bodies set up for that purpose, but in the
> G7/8 or, since 2009, in the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which
> have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these
> organizations and groupings is very limited, the more so as the
> real dec
> isions are taken there.
> >
> > Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect
> their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they cannot
> improve their democratic accountability as this can be done for
> multistakeholderism in its present form.
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> > Von: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> > Datum: Montag, 09. M�rz 2015 15:10
> > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>,
> Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>, "nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <
> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>
> > Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
> viewpoints
> >
> >
> > I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very
> informed commentary with most of which I agree...
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
> > Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
> Norbert Bollow
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
> viewpoints
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Norbert,
> >
> >
> >
> > I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the
> discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on
> multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that
> the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and
> sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of
> information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the
> results. One could also argue as more democratic the relationship as
> better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do
> not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based
> and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be
> democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.
> >
> >
> >
> > [MG] agree
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of
> power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the
> results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like
> "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent
> about the objectives of the different partners.
> >
> >
> >
> > [MG] agree
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to
> the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state
> level among citizens.
> >
> >
> >
> > [MG] agree
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of
> international economic organizations, which mainly means more
> participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the
> quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further
> democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will
> depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced
> of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.
> >
> >
> >
> > [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that
> there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the
> IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there
> was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a
> comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing
> that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a
> devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion
> through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.
> Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was
> still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative,
> democratic institutions.
> >
> >
> >
> > At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived
> from and legitimated by the \u201cwill of the people\u201d understood in
> its broadest and most inclusive meaning. Multi-stakeholder decision making
> (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a
> consensus being found among competing stakeholder interests. In this
> context we are not discussing how to achieve \u201cfurther
> democratization\u201d of existing institutions but rather what is to be the
> shape and underlying model of governance for institutions yet to be
> created. That is why the USG is so concerned that they would draw a
> red-line around \u201cdemocracy\u201d as a way of characterizing those
> institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong
> preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to
> above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:
> nb at bollow.ch>>:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
> >
> >> divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
> >
> >> Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
> >
> >> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
> >
> >> it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
> >
> >> which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
> >
> >> democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
> >
> >> multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
> >
> >> Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
> >
> >> involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
> >
> >> governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
> >
> >> necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
> >
> >> principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
> >
> >> having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
> >
> >> multistakeholderism.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
> >
> >> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
> >
> >> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
> >
> >> Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
> >
> >> those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
> >
> >> and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
> >
> >> had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
> >
> >> government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
> >
> >>from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
> >
> >> consensus text along those lines.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
> >
> >> "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
> >
> >> written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
> >
> >> viewpoints of both sides.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Greetings,
> >
> >> Norbert
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
> >
> >> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
> >
> >>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
> >
> >>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
> >
> >>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
> >
> >>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
> >
> >>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
> >
> >>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
> >
> >>> perspectives:
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
> >
> >>> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
> >
> >>> it as a JNC position, and
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
> >
> >>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
> >
> >>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
> >
> >>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
> >
> >>> consensus.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
> >
> >>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> >
> >>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
> >
> >>> people. In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of
> >
> >>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
> >
> >>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
> >
> >>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
> >
> >>> always possible to reach consensus.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
> >
> >>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
> >
> >>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
> >
> >>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
> >
> >>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
> >
> >>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
> >
> >>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should
> >
> >>> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to
> >
> >>> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions
> >
> >>> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
> >
> >>> solution?")
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
> >
> >>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
> >
> >>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
> >
> >>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
> >
> >>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
> >
> >>> going around in circles.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
> >
> >>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
> >
> >>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
> >
> >>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a
> >
> >>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.
> >
> >>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it
> >
> >>> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> Greetings,
> >
> >>> Norbert
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
> >
> >>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
> >
> >>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
> >
> >>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
> >
> >>> of this distinction.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> On Sun, 8 Mar
> >
> >>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:
> jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:
> nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm
> >
> >>>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> >
> >>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
> >
> >>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people. In fact, we have more concrete
> >
> >>>>>> proposals than you do!
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
> >
> >>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
> >
> >>>>> ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
> >
> >>>> on. Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/). For a less academic,
> >
> >>>> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
> >
> >>>> NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs). For my
> >
> >>>> own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
> >
> >>>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
> >
> >>>> that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
> >
> >>>> Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
> >
> >>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts. And do none
> >
> >>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing
> >
> >>> -ia
> >
> >>> na/)
> >
> >>>> count for anything?
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
> >
> >>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
> >
> >>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
> >
> >>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
> >
> >>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
> >
> >>>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
> >
> >>>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
> >
> >>>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
> >
> >>>> point, right? The problem that you really have is that you're not
> >
> >>>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
> >
> >>>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
> >
> >>>> legitimate. So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
> >
> >>>> has been going around in circles. Everything that could possibly
> >
> >>>> be said between us on this topic, has been - many times. I'm
> >
> >>>> starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list
> >
> >>>> mails with a link to that. For now, if there is anything that you
> >
> >>>> think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list
> >
> >>>> and I'll point you to it.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/72cb8104/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 10:43:45 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:43:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>

I'm finding this discussion very instructive from both perspectives
(multistakeholder and democratic) Thank you.
One thing that seems to be missing in everything that I have read so far is
an explanation of "what is a stake"? I would add to this -
- how is the stake "held", by what authority or right?
- how are the stakes "balanced" against one another? and
- is a stakeholder an individual or a group?

On a lighter note it's important to remember that language is dynamic in
spite of capture in documents. A friend from Latin America was explaining
recently the changes over the last seventy years or so in the Colombian
expression "viernes culturales" which began as cultural, moved through
political and is currently - recreational?
:-)

Deirdre


On 10 March 2015 at 09:13, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't need
> these institutions and that we should not participate in them and make
> them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as you say,
> ignore their democratic deficits.
>
> These deficits exist at national level as well.
>
> Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing
> intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance
> institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate
> international cooperation in the economic and social field can be
> considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the world
> according to the principle of geographical representation, the largest
> group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play its role. In
> IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still has a blocking
> minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but in practice hardly
> any decisions are possible against the major trading powers. The ITU I do
> not have to explain here. The main decisions in international economic
> affairs are taken not in the UN bodies set up for that purpose, but in the
> G7/8 or, since 2009, in the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which
> have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these
> organizations and groupings is very limited, the more so as the
>   real dec
> isions are taken there.
> >
> > Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect
> their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they cannot
> improve their democratic accountability as this can be done for
> multistakeholderism in its present form.
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> > Von: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> > Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10
> > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>,
> Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>, "nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <
> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>
> > Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
> viewpoints
> >
> >
> > I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very
> informed commentary with most of which I agree...
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
> > Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
> Norbert Bollow
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
> viewpoints
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Norbert,
> >
> >
> >
> > I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the
> discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on
> multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that
> the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and
> sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of
> information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the
> results. One could also argue as more democratic the  relationship as
> better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do
> not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based
> and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be
> democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.
> >
> >
> >
> > [MG] agree
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of
> power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the
> results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like
> "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent
> about the objectives of the different partners.
> >
> >
> >
> > [MG] agree
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to
> the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state
> level among citizens.
> >
> >
> >
> > [MG] agree
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of
> international economic organizations, which mainly means more
> participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the
> quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further
> democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will
> depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced
> of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.
> >
> >
> >
> > [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that
> there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the
> IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there
> was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a
> comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing
> that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a
> devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion
> through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.
> Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was
> still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative,
> democratic institutions.
> >
> >
> >
> > At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived
> from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood in its broadest
> and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus
> presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being
> found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not
> discussing how to achieve “further democratization” of existing
> institutions but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of
> governance for institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so
> concerned that they would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of
> characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear that they
> have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you
> have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and
> the powerful.
> >
> >
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wolfgang Benedek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>          t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:
> nb at bollow.ch>>:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
> >
> >> divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
> >
> >> Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
> >
> >> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
> >
> >> it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
> >
> >> which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
> >
> >> democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
> >
> >> multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
> >
> >> Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
> >
> >> involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
> >
> >> governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
> >
> >> necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
> >
> >> principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
> >
> >> having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
> >
> >> multistakeholderism.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
> >
> >> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
> >
> >> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
> >
> >> Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
> >
> >> those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
> >
> >> and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
> >
> >> had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
> >
> >> government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
> >
> >>from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
> >
> >> consensus text along those lines.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
> >
> >> "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
> >
> >> written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
> >
> >> viewpoints of both sides.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Greetings,
> >
> >> Norbert
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
> >
> >> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
> >
> >>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
> >
> >>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
> >
> >>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
> >
> >>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
> >
> >>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
> >
> >>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
> >
> >>> perspectives:
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
> >
> >>> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
> >
> >>> it as a JNC position, and
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
> >
> >>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
> >
> >>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
> >
> >>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
> >
> >>> consensus.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
> >
> >>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> >
> >>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
> >
> >>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of
> >
> >>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
> >
> >>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
> >
> >>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
> >
> >>> always possible to reach consensus.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
> >
> >>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
> >
> >>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
> >
> >>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
> >
> >>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
> >
> >>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
> >
> >>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should
> >
> >>> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to
> >
> >>> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions
> >
> >>> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
> >
> >>> solution?")
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
> >
> >>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
> >
> >>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
> >
> >>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
> >
> >>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
> >
> >>> going around in circles.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
> >
> >>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
> >
> >>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
> >
> >>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a
> >
> >>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.
> >
> >>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it
> >
> >>> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> Greetings,
> >
> >>> Norbert
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
> >
> >>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
> >
> >>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
> >
> >>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
> >
> >>> of this distinction.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> On Sun, 8 Mar
> >
> >>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:
> jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:
> nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm
> >
> >>>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
> >
> >>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
> >
> >>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
> >
> >>>>>> proposals than you do!
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
> >
> >>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
> >
> >>>>> ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
> >
> >>>> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
> >
> >>>> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
> >
> >>>> NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
> >
> >>>> own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
> >
> >>>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
> >
> >>>> that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
> >
> >>>> Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
> >
> >>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
> >
> >>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing
> >
> >>> -ia
> >
> >>> na/)
> >
> >>>> count for anything?
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
> >
> >>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
> >
> >>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
> >
> >>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
> >
> >>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
> >
> >>>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
> >
> >>>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
> >
> >>>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
> >
> >>>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
> >
> >>>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
> >
> >>>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
> >
> >>>> legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
> >
> >>>> has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly
> >
> >>>> be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm
> >
> >>>> starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list
> >
> >>>> mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you
> >
> >>>> think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list
> >
> >>>> and I'll point you to it.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/092a46d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Mar 10 12:02:15 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:02:15 +0000
Subject: [governance]  [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
 <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
 <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
 <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
 <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
 <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
 <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> 
Message-ID: <e0f763f929114a0faefdc13c3b40bb45@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Erik:

Do you really have nothing better to do than play silly word games? A European party that favors restrictions on immigration, in my reference, means a political party _in Europe_, such as UKIP, Syriza, the Front National, etc., etc. 

> -----Original Message-----
> To my knowledge there are no "European parties" standing for elections 
> in any Member State of the EU. Yet.
> 
> There are myriads of permutations (or should I say perturbations) of 
> structures created by "political families" trying to link nations with 
> that sweet slogan "United in Diversity".
> 
> And as I said before, now even the CJEU has joined the discussion with 
> its Opinion 2/13, which transferred would fall in your category C).
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm all for motherhood and apple pie.
> 
> As another Charlie said, let us all unite in the name of democracy:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> //Erik
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance- 
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller 
> [mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday 9 March 2015 20:34
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert 
> Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't 
> solve the problem. It is more fundamental.
> 
> I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder 
> a dozen times, if not more.
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very 
> meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely 
> unclear in a globalized environment.
> 
> Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined 
> and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial 
> states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define 
> an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen 
> population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision 
> making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks 
> and balances on the various branches of government.
> 
> None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet.
> There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global 
> constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised 
> by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and 
> effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial 
> division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically 
> governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the 
> increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples.
> 
> Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any 
> of these things:
> 
> A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that 
> "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it.
> Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. 
> This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy
> 
> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing 
> states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in 
> the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized 
> UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations 
> voting are not internally democratic
> 
> C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic 
> institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a 
> globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what 
> form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how 
> they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" 
> regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), 
> what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable?
> 
> I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of 
> these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B.
> 
> --MM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- 
> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; 
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 
> > wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo 
> > Declaration
> which states:
> >
> > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
> > Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder 
> > processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of 
> > all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil 
> > society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
> > The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 
> > interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under
> discussion.
> >
> >
> > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 
> > Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the 
> > implementation of 9.1.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert 
> > Bollow
> > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
> > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang
> > (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> > <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> >
> > > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the 
> > > UDHR and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither 
> > > used in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 
> > > of the ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's 
> > > country, periodic elections etc
> >
> > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in 
> > relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not 
> > used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and 
> > its government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
> >
> > > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be 
> > > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic 
> > > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no 
> > > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international 
> > > human rights body to my knowledge.
> >
> > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic"
> > occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with 
> > the same
> > meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, 
> > here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> > > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human 
> > > Rights, the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a 
> > > "pressing social need" for restrictions which are possible based 
> > > on the similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic 
> > > society". More and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on 
> > > Freedom of Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
> > >
> > > Wolfgang Benedek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
> > >
> > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 David Cake 
> > > ><dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions 
> > > >> of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means 
> > > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all 
> > > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that 
> > > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC 
> > > >> denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your 
> > > >> interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
> > > >
> > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a 
> > > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post 
> > > >about this when it is available.
> > > >
> > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in 
> > > >reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic"
> > > >in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is 
> > > >used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> > > >
> > > >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 gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 12:20:28 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:20:28 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [Steeringcommittee] FW: [bestbits] Remarks at
 UNESCO	Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <002901d05b06$80f314d0$82d93e70$@ch>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>	<54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>	<7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>	<54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>	<38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>	<20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>	<D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>	<20150309154039.3f510466@quill>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,	<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>	<4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>	<042401d05af2$a0d58e40$e280aac0$@gmail.com> <002901d05b06$80f314d0$82d93e70$@ch>
Message-ID: <016a01d05b4e$2006aef0$60140cd0$@gmail.com>

Please see Richard Hill's informed response to Milton's amazingly shallow
characterization of the state of global governance structures.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Steeringcommittee
[mailto:steeringcommittee-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Hill
Sent: March 10, 2015 12:48 AM
To: steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [Steeringcommittee] FW: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at
UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Please see my embedded comments below and feel free to forward, quote, or
reuse, with or without attribution, as you see fit.

multi-stakeholderism? It is long overdue.

Best,
Richard


> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller 
> [mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday 9 March 2015 20:34
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert 
> Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't 
> solve the problem. It is more fundamental.
> 
> I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder 
> a dozen times, if not more.
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very 
> meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely 
> unclear in a globalized environment.

Indeed it needs to be clarified, but this does not make it undesirable.

> 
> Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined 
> and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial 
> states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define 
> an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen 
> population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision 
> making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks 
> and balances on the various branches of government.

Yes, and on an international order (agreements between states) that further
limits the power and scope of states in order to protect individual rights
and to maintain checks and balances.

People tend to forget that the main reason behind the treaty of Westphalia
of 1648, and one of its great accomplishments, was that states (kings)
agreed that they would not intervene in the internal affairs of other
states. That was a significant limit on royal power.

People also tend to forget that treaties must (at least in democratic
countries) be ratified by national parliaments. So they are even more
legitimate than national laws because they represent the democratically
expressed will of people in many countries.

> 
> None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the 
> internet.
> There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global 
> constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised 
> by a global state, etc.

That is not correct. There are numerous treaties that divide and limit the
powers that can be exercises by states, whether nationally or globally. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties constitute
significant components of what can be considered a global constitution.

The legislative branch at the global level is the treaty-making process.
The judicial branch is mostly national courts (who, in many countries, must
apply international law as well as national law), but, for some specific
matters, there are international courts. The executive branch is the
national governments.

Looked at from this point of view, the world is a federal state, with the
national states being the members of the federation. For sure it is a rather
weak federation, but stronger than Europe Union was at the beginning.

>
There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the
> preferences of a global population.

Incorrect. Treaties are the mechanisms used to aggregate and effectuate the
preferences of the global population.

For sure that is an imperfect mechanism and it should be improved, but it is
an existing mechanism and it is reasonably effective in some areas (for
example, international commercial law).

>
 The territorial division of
> populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, 
> creates its own
> pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of 
> European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of 
> hundreds of possible examples.

To state that that is a pathology is a value judgment. Others might take the
view that it is pathological to think that there should be no restrictions
whatsoever on immigration.

> 
> Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any 
> of these things:
> 
> A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that 
> "democracy"
> is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it.
> Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. 
> This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy

As Churchill said, it is the least worst system that we know of. Those who
criticize democracy should explain what alternative is better.

In particular, those who think that states do not properly represent the
people should explain what mechanism they propose that would properly
represent the people.

> 
> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing 
> states over internet governance,

I thought that it was widely agreed that offline law applies equally online.
So I don't think that the assertion of the authority of existing states over
Internet governance is a matter for debate.

What can be, and is being, debated is whether some new laws are needed to
cover some aspects of the Internet. For example, some states don't tax
Internet transactions or, conversely, are considering clarifying their tax
laws so as to eliminate certain forms of tax avoidance based on Internet
transactions.

> which means not only "democracy" in
> the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized 
> UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations 
> voting are not internally democratic

And it also refers to the system of international law, mostly enunciated in
treaties, that I have outlined above and is democratic in ways in which
federal states are democratic.

> 
> C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic 
> institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a 
> globalized framework.

No, not easily. But what is the alternative?

>But if so, why do we hear so little about what  form these new 
>institutions will take, how they will be designed, how  they will avoid 
>abuses of power?

Because (1) it is a difficult problem that requires considerable thought and
(2) the very idea is dismissed out of hand, thus cutting off any intelligent
debate, as can be seen from this very post.

>When MG or NB talk about "democratic"
> regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably),  
>what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate  
>under and to which courts are they accountable?

That depends on the subject matter. For commercial matters, such as
taxation, the answer is pretty clear. For data privacy, I (Richard Hill)
personally believe that it should be the law and the courts of the
individual. One could work out an answer for other matters too, and in some
cases the answer would be that the current setup is not appropriate and
should be changed.

> 
> I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of 
> these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is 
> basically represented by B.

I'm not sure what B. is. But a denial of democracy as a guiding principle is
either a naïve belief in some superior system that nobody has yet explained,
or a deliberate intent to favor the commercial forces that are perverting
the Internet and democracy, as documented in detail in Robert McChesney's
book Digital Disconnect, see:

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Disconnect-Capitalism-Internet-Democracy/dp/15
95588671 

> 
> --MM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- 
> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; 
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 
> > wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo 
> > Declaration
> which states:
> >
> > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
> > Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder 
> > processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of 
> > all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil 
> > society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
> > The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 
> > interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under
> discussion.
> >
> >
> > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 
> > Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the 
> > implementation of 9.1.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert 
> > Bollow
> > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
> > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang
> > (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> > <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> >
> > > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the
> UDHR
> > > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used 
> > > in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of 
> > > the ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's 
> > > country, periodic elections etc
> >
> > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in 
> > relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not 
> > used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and 
> > its government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
> >
> > > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be 
> > > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic 
> > > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no 
> > > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international 
> > > human rights body to my knowledge.
> >
> > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word
> "democratic"
> > occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with 
> > the same
> > meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, 
> > here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR,
> Art.
> 4.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> > > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human 
> > > Rights, the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a 
> > > "pressing social need" for restrictions which are possible based 
> > > on the similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic 
> > > society". More and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on 
> > > Freedom of Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
> > >
> > > Wolfgang Benedek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
> > >
> > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 David Cake 
> > > ><dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions 
> > > >> of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means 
> > > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all 
> > > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that 
> > > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC
> denies
> > > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of 
> > > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
> > > >
> > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a 
> > > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post 
> > > >about this when it is available.
> > > >
> > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in 
> > > >reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic"
> > > >in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is 
> > > >used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> > > >
> > > >Greetings,
> > > >Norbert
> > > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Steeringcommittee mailing list
> Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org
> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/steeringcommittee_justnet
> c
> oalition.org



_______________________________________________
Steeringcommittee mailing list
Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org
http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/steeringcommittee_justnetcoalit
ion.org


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

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Mar 10 12:29:11 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:29:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] Democracy (was Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing
 Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference")
In-Reply-To: <20150310092548.6f531be9@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
	<54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
	<7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
	<54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
	<38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
	<20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
	<D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <20150310092548.6f531be9@quill>
Message-ID: <8ffde96a1cf64132b81d0c378232ade5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> 
> The literal meaning of δημοκρατία (dēmokratía), in modern language
> "democracy", is that "it's the people who have the power to rule". This is
> since ancient times seen in contrast to "the rule of an elite", the ancient
> Greek term for the latter being ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratía).

And in that respect none of us really supports "democracy" do we? if it means that 'the people' (and who is that, exactly?) has the power to hang us without trial (it's called lynching in America), suppress minority viewpoints, etc. It's also true that we do have a choice other than elite rule and mob rule: rule of law.  

> How democratic governance, in the sense of that literal meaning, is to be
> implemented in an increasingly globalized and increasingly ICT-based world
> (of which the Internet is nowadays already a rather central aspect, and it is
> widely expected that the centrality of the Internet will continue to grow),
> that is something that requires discussion and consensus building.

Yes, but it requires a hell of a lot more than discussion and consensus building. The definition of a 'people' with the ability to rule requires a substantial institutional infrastructure, as I argued in my last post. But you seem to accept this argument further down in your post so I won't belabor it.

> In fact much of what goes wrong in the governance of national states which
> are democratic (or which at least claim to be democratic) can be blamed on
> the fact that even in such states (despite all the checks and balances and
> other good countermeasures against elites gaining unreasonable power)
> there are often still elites which gain a lot of power and abuse it for their
> own gain; the resulting anger of the people is then exploited by populists.

Interesting that you attribute all the problems with 'democracy' to some small elites, the bad guys, and not to irrational or greedy decisions by 'the people' themselves. So the people can never be wrong, or never be manipulated? 

> The way to improve political systems in order to reduce this kind of
> phenomenon is not to give up on the ideal of democracy, but to implement
> it more effectively, so that there will be less abuse of power by elites, and
> therefore less public anger, and therefore less opportunity for populists who
> will try to exploit such anger whenever they 

I am not giving up on the ideal of democracy, which to me means popular sovereignty. There are two things missing from these overly simple discussion of democratic governance, however.

One is that there is a lot about the internet that we _don't_ want to be centrally governed. Indeed, its resistance to central control is one of the reasons for its success. 

The other is the role of the market. You can't have a complex, post-industrial society without markets, and yet this kind of choice or self-governance is always unpopular with politicians, whether of democratic or oligarchic stripe, because it limits their power. Furthermore, complex market economies introduce a need for expertise in regulation. Regulation or intervention in markets that is politically popular but ill-informed can be utterly disastrous, as various financial crises ranging from the great depression to the 2008 mortgage bubble demonstrate. Greek governments who spent more than they had were very popular with 'the people.' Paying the debt is never popular. Since the Internet is a product entirely of market-oriented, neoliberal policies, I am always curious about this huge gap in the thinking of democratic governance advocates. 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 10 12:39:33 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:09:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54FF1E45.6040607@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 10 March 2015 06:43 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't need
> these institutions and that we should not participate in them and make
> them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as you say,
> ignore their democratic deficits.

Wolfgang and Anriette, I have not been able to understand who here has 
been ignoring democratic deficits in 'these institutions' and, further, 
how by asking to retain references to democracy and democratic in IG 
documents, that are increasingly peppered with the MS term (which 
efforts btw are not to be considered as wordsmith-ing), one may be 
contributing to ignoring any kind of democratic deficit.
> These deficits exist at national level as well.

Exactly, and still there seem to be no proposals around to replace 
democratic republic of India or South Africa with Multistakholder entity 
of India or South Africa. Efforts in such kind of directions however 
have begun at the global level, of which the recent UNESCO doc is a 
testimony. This, is the problem that some of us are trying to highlight 
and address, and I dont see it as a small problem.

We seek to address national level democratic deficits by trying to 
improve and increase democracy, which is rather ill-served by replacing 
this key political ideal of 'democracy' by new political terms which 
undermine people's sovereignty and democratic rights. Similarly at the 
global level.
> Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing
> intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.

Yes, but only as long as these multistakeholder (MS) approaches do not 
seek to supplant these processes - you cannot make a set of processes 
more inclusive and transparent by supplanting them - which is the 
problem that is being sought to be addressed. This problem is 
represented in the insistence that 'democratic' be removed but the MS 
term retained in a key global normative document related to IG.

It is worth repeated a hundred times that no one, including JNC, asked 
for removal of the MS term, but people expressly and strongly asked for 
the removal of the 'democratic' term, and got away with it. We are 
simply saying that they should not have got away with it. And many here 
seem to think, that is all right - this is the problem, and at the root 
of the current discussion.

parminder

> Anriette
>
>
> On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate international cooperation in the economic and social field can be considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the world according to the principle of geographical representation, the largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play its role. In  IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations and groupings is very limited, the more so as the
>    real dec
> isions are taken there.
>> Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be done for multistakeholderism in its present form.
>>
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>> Von: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10
>> An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>, "nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <nb at bo
>> llow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>
>> Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
>>
>>
>> I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very informed commentary with most of which I agree...
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
>> Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Norbert Bollow
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Norbert,
>>
>>
>>
>> I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the results. One could also argue as more democratic the  relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.
>>
>>
>>
>> [MG] agree
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent about the objectives of the different partners.
>>
>>
>>
>> [MG] agree
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state level among citizens.
>>
>>
>>
>> [MG] agree
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.
>>
>>
>>
>> [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.  Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.
>>
>>
>>
>> At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood in its broadest and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve “further democratization” of existing institutions but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned that they would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
>>> divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
>>> Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
>>> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
>>> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
>>> it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
>>> which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
>>> democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
>>> multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
>>> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
>>> Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
>>> involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
>>> governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
>>> necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
>>> principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
>>> having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
>>> multistakeholderism.
>> >From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
>>
>>> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
>>> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
>>> Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
>>> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
>>> those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
>>> and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
>>> had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
>>> government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
>> >from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
>>
>>> consensus text along those lines.
>>> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
>>> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
>>> "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
>>> written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
>>> viewpoints of both sides.
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
>>> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
>>>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
>>>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
>>>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
>>>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
>>>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
>>>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
>>>> perspectives:
>>>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
>>>> my proposalhttp://WisdomTaskForce.org  and clarified that
>>>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
>>>> it as a JNC position, and
>>>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
>>>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
>>>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
>>>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
>>>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
>>>> consensus.
>>>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
>>>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
>>>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
>>>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of
>>>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.
>>>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
>>>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
>>>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
>>>> always possible to reach consensus.
>>>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
>>>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
>>>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
>>>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
>>>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
>>>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
>>>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
>>>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should
>>>> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to
>>>> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions
>>>> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
>>>> solution?")
>>>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
>>>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
>>>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
>>>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
>>>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
>>>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
>>>> going around in circles.
>>>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
>>>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
>>>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
>>>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a
>>>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.
>>>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it
>>>> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
>>>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
>>>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
>>>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
>>>> of this distinction.
>>>> On Sun, 8 Mar
>>>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>>>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
>>>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
>>>>>>> proposals than you do!
>>>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
>>>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
>>>>>> (http://WisdomTaskForce.org  .)
>>>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
>>>>> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
>>>>> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
>>>>> NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
>>>>> own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
>>>>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
>>>>> that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
>>>>> Creative Commons athttps://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
>>>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
>>>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
>>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing
>>>> -ia
>>>> na/)
>>>>> count for anything?
>>>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
>>>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
>>>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
>>>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
>>>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
>>>>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
>>>>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
>>>>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
>>>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
>>>>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
>>>>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
>>>>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
>>>>> legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
>>>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
>>>>> has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly
>>>>> be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm
>>>>> starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list
>>>>> mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you
>>>>> think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list
>>>>> and I'll point you to it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/15015a9b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Mar 10 12:40:05 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:40:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
	<20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
	<D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
	<D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
	<CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:43:45 -0400
Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> One thing that seems to be missing in everything that I have read so
> far is an explanation of "what is a stake"?

Humanity is in the process of a very significant transition to a
state of organization which is much more globalized and much more
ICT-based than anything that we have experience with.

In my view, whether democracy(*) will survive this transition is very
much at stake.

Greetings,
Norbert

(*) I mean "democracy" in the sense of the literal meaning of the
word, as explained in a recent posting on this list and also at
http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democracy/

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue Mar 10 12:46:15 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:46:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <5FBE4D2E-A6A2-4BF2-A7C8-158E21856F3E@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
 <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
 <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
 <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
 <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
 <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
 <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <5FBE4D2E-A6A2-4BF2-A7C8-158E21856F3E@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <e3b9f20ef0d4412291a4f9b99e4793bc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>


It is amusing to think of Milton's concluding address back in Istanbul with his grandiose utopian libertarian call for a global digital citizenry. Nowadays, he seems to be afraid by his own dream turned nightmare. Because someone dropped a little democratic spice on it. His dream is suddenly being spoiled.

MM: Not at all. It's always had the spice, we just have different tastes.

First, I've been criticizing the term "MS" for years, I recognize its limitations and have stoutly resisted its transformation into a religion.

And as I said in Istanbul, a call for "MS governance" seems pallid compared to a call for a new global digital citizenry. In some sense this is a 'democratic' vision; however, I also noted that the prospects for new global institutions have to be built on these new, organically developed internet institutions because of the way they bypass existing power structures and create newer, more open participatory structures.

The reason I resist JNC-style calls for democracy, however, is (and I thought I explained this in my first post) that JNC seems to be advocating either a reassertion of state-based national government/multilateral 'democracy', or an isomorphic translation of 20th century nation state democracy to the global level. If that shoe doesn't fit you, or anyone else in JNC, don't wear it. I also don't see their version of democracy as sufficiently seasoned with liberalism, and democracy without liberalism is just mob rule, which on a global scale seems disastrous to me.

>From a terminological standpoint, I am much more interested in emphasizing individual rights than democracy, though democratic rights would be ok with me, and see territorial states, including the US, as the chief threats to those rights on the Internet.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/d2c24c06/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Tue Mar 10 12:55:33 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:55:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <e0f763f929114a0faefdc13c3b40bb45@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
 <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
 <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
 <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
 <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
 <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
 <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
 ,<e0f763f929114a0faefdc13c3b40bb45@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357990D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

No, that is actually my dayjob.

I came to this debate for two reasons, the wepromise campaign and the EP's IGF resolution. I gave advice to MEPs on both. I am here to learn more and, hopefully, contribute with the little I know from my world that could possibly be relevant for the discussion.

I apologise for that my tone was silly. Indeed it was.

I regret it the more if nothing was useful.

//Erik

________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 17:02
To: Governance (governance at lists.igcaucus.org)
Subject: [governance]  [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Erik:

Do you really have nothing better to do than play silly word games? A European party that favors restrictions on immigration, in my reference, means a political party _in Europe_, such as UKIP, Syriza, the Front National, etc., etc.

> -----Original Message-----
> To my knowledge there are no "European parties" standing for elections
> in any Member State of the EU. Yet.
>
> There are myriads of permutations (or should I say perturbations) of
> structures created by "political families" trying to link nations with
> that sweet slogan "United in Diversity".
>
> And as I said before, now even the CJEU has joined the discussion with
> its Opinion 2/13, which transferred would fall in your category C).
>
> For what it's worth, I'm all for motherhood and apple pie.
>
> As another Charlie said, let us all unite in the name of democracy:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA
>
> Best regards.
>
> //Erik
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller
> [mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday 9 March 2015 20:34
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert
> Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
> Wolfgang
>
> Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't
> solve the problem. It is more fundamental.
>
> I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder
> a dozen times, if not more.
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very
> meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely
> unclear in a globalized environment.
>
> Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined
> and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial
> states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define
> an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen
> population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision
> making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks
> and balances on the various branches of government.
>
> None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet.
> There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global
> constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised
> by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and
> effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial
> division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically
> governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the
> increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples.
>
> Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any
> of these things:
>
> A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that
> "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it.
> Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic.
> This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy
>
> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing
> states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in
> the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized
> UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations
> voting are not internally democratic
>
> C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic
> institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a
> globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what
> form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how
> they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic"
> regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably),
> what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable?
>
> I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of
> these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B.
>
> --MM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow;
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
> > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre
> > wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo
> > Declaration
> which states:
> >
> > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
> > Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder
> > processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of
> > all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil
> > society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
> > The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be
> > interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under
> discussion.
> >
> >
> > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao
> > Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the
> > implementation of 9.1.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert
> > Bollow
> > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
> > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang
> > (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
> > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> > <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> >
> > > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the
> > > UDHR and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither
> > > used in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25
> > > of the ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's
> > > country, periodic elections etc
> >
> > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in
> > relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not
> > used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and
> > its government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
> >
> > > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be
> > > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic
> > > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no
> > > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international
> > > human rights body to my knowledge.
> >
> > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic"
> > occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with
> > the same
> > meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular,
> > here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> > > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human
> > > Rights, the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a
> > > "pressing social need" for restrictions which are possible based
> > > on the similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic
> > > society". More and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on
> > > Freedom of Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
> > >
> > > Wolfgang Benedek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
> > >
> > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 David Cake
> > > ><dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions
> > > >> of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means
> > > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all
> > > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that
> > > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC
> > > >> denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your
> > > >> interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
> > > >
> > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
> > > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
> > > >about this when it is available.
> > > >
> > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in
> > > >reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic"
> > > >in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is
> > > >used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> > > >
> > > >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 anriette at apc.org  Tue Mar 10 13:23:17 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:23:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <54FF1E45.6040607@itforchange.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <54FF1E45.6040607@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54FF2885.3080401@apc.org>

Parminder, APC has never asked for removal of the term decmoratic. It
has been in our formal texts and it is in the NETmundial statement which
we feel builds on the Tunis Agenda positively.

Nor has anyone else on this list asked for the removal of that term in a
general sense.

What was raised was that in the context of the Tunis Agenda, the term
'democratic' occurs consistently with the term multilateral. This has
often been actively interpreted by countries who oppose multistakeholder
approaches, and who are not in favour of civil society participation as
meaning 'among governments'.

What we believe the term means and should mean becomes secondary to what
it means in the 'code' of this particular UN process.

That is all.

No one at the UNESCO meeting "strongly asked for the "removal" of the
term "democratic multistakeholder".

Richard asked for it to be included in the document but it never made it
in for the reasons mentioned above and earlier in this discussion.

I am not saying that there are no other agendas (including hidden
agendas) in multistakeholder OR intergovernmental processes... but I do
think your suggestion that there is an actively anti-democratic agenda
among others in civil society is inaccurate, and comes across as an
effort to discredit our motives and our work.

Anriette


On 10/03/2015 18:39, parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 10 March 2015 06:43 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't need
>> these institutions and that we should not participate in them and make
>> them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as you say,
>> ignore their democratic deficits.
> 
> Wolfgang and Anriette, I have not been able to understand who here has
> been ignoring democratic deficits in 'these institutions' and, further,
> how by asking to retain references to democracy and democratic in IG
> documents, that are increasingly peppered with the MS term (which
> efforts btw are not to be considered as wordsmith-ing), one may be
> contributing to ignoring any kind of democratic deficit.
>> These deficits exist at national level as well.
> 
> Exactly, and still there seem to be no proposals around to replace
> democratic republic of India or South Africa with Multistakholder entity
> of India or South Africa. Efforts in such kind of directions however
> have begun at the global level, of which the recent UNESCO doc is a
> testimony. This, is the problem that some of us are trying to highlight
> and address, and I dont see it as a small problem.
> 
> We seek to address national level democratic deficits by trying to
> improve and increase democracy, which is rather ill-served by replacing
> this key political ideal of 'democracy' by new political terms which
> undermine people's sovereignty and democratic rights. Similarly at the
> global level.
>> Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing
>> intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.
> 
> Yes, but only as long as these multistakeholder (MS) approaches do not
> seek to supplant these processes - you cannot make a set of processes
> more inclusive and transparent by supplanting them - which is the
> problem that is being sought to be addressed. This problem is
> represented in the insistence that 'democratic' be removed but the MS
> term retained in a key global normative document related to IG.
> 
> It is worth repeated a hundred times that no one, including JNC, asked
> for removal of the MS term, but people expressly and strongly asked for
> the removal of the 'democratic' term, and got away with it. We are
> simply saying that they should not have got away with it. And many here
> seem to think, that is all right - this is the problem, and at the root
> of the current discussion.
> 
> parminder
> 
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance
>>> institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate
>>> international cooperation in the economic and social field can be
>>> considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the
>>> world according to the principle of geographical representation, the
>>> largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play
>>> its role. In  IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still
>>> has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but
>>> in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major
>>> trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main
>>> decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN
>>> bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in
>>> the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic
>>> accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations
>>> and groupings is very limited, the more so as the
>>    real dec
>> isions are taken there.
>>> Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect
>>> their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they
>>> cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be done
>>> for multistakeholderism in its present form.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>> Von: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>> Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10
>>> An:
>>> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Wolfgang
>>> Benedek
>>> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>,
>>> "nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <nb at bo
>>> llow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>
>>> Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus
>>> pro-democracy viewpoints
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very
>>> informed commentary with most of which I agree...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek,
>>> Wolfgang
>>> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
>>> Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>>> Norbert Bollow
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus
>>> pro-democracy viewpoints
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Norbert,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the
>>> discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on
>>> multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed
>>> that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and
>>> sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of
>>> information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the
>>> results. One could also argue as more democratic the  relationship as
>>> better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers,
>>> who do not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs
>>> to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in resource
>>> endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have
>>> more say than beneficiaries.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [MG] agree
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities
>>> of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it
>>> the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like
>>> "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being
>>> transparent about the objectives of the different partners.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [MG] agree
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it
>>> to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on
>>> the state level among citizens.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [MG] agree
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of
>>> international economic organizations, which mainly means more
>>> participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve
>>> the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further
>>> democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much
>>> will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be
>>> convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for all
>>> stakeholders.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in
>>> that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable
>>> to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if
>>> globally there was an attempt to create those institutions at this
>>> time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we are
>>> currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods institutions
>>> were established at the end of a devastating world war which was only
>>> brought to a successful conclusion through the extraordinary actions
>>> of democratic states acting concert.  Notably also, at that time
>>> roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was still under imperialist
>>> control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is
>>> derived from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood
>>> in its broadest and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder
>>> decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and
>>> legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder
>>> interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve
>>> “further democratization” of existing institutions but rather what is
>>> to be the shape and underlying model of governance for institutions
>>> yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned that they
>>> would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of characterizing
>>> those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a
>>> strong preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have
>>> pointed to above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and
>>> the powerful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
>>> t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter
>>> <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
>>>> divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
>>>> Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
>>>> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
>>>> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
>>>> it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
>>>> which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
>>>> democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
>>>> multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
>>>> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
>>>> Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
>>>> involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
>>>> governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
>>>> necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
>>>> principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
>>>> having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
>>>> multistakeholderism.
>>> >From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
>>>
>>>> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
>>>> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
>>>> Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
>>>> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
>>>> those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
>>>> and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
>>>> had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
>>>> government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
>>> >from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
>>>
>>>> consensus text along those lines.
>>>> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
>>>> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
>>>> "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
>>>> written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
>>>> viewpoints of both sides.
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
>>>> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
>>>>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
>>>>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
>>>>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
>>>>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
>>>>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
>>>>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
>>>>> perspectives:
>>>>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
>>>>> my proposalhttp://WisdomTaskForce.org  and clarified that
>>>>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
>>>>> it as a JNC position, and
>>>>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
>>>>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
>>>>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
>>>>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
>>>>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
>>>>> consensus.
>>>>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
>>>>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
>>>>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
>>>>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of
>>>>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.
>>>>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
>>>>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
>>>>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
>>>>> always possible to reach consensus.
>>>>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
>>>>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
>>>>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
>>>>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
>>>>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
>>>>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
>>>>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
>>>>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should
>>>>> be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to
>>>>> purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions
>>>>> of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
>>>>> solution?")
>>>>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
>>>>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
>>>>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
>>>>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
>>>>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
>>>>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
>>>>> going around in circles.
>>>>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
>>>>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
>>>>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
>>>>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a
>>>>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.
>>>>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it
>>>>> as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
>>>>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
>>>>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
>>>>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
>>>>> of this distinction.
>>>>> On Sun, 8 Mar
>>>>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow
>>>>>> <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>>>>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
>>>>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
>>>>>>>> proposals than you do!
>>>>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
>>>>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
>>>>>>> (http://WisdomTaskForce.org  .)
>>>>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
>>>>>> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
>>>>>> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
>>>>>> NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
>>>>>> own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
>>>>>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
>>>>>> that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
>>>>>> Creative Commons athttps://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
>>>>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
>>>>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
>>>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing
>>>>> -ia
>>>>> na/)
>>>>>> count for anything?
>>>>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
>>>>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
>>>>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
>>>>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
>>>>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
>>>>>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
>>>>>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
>>>>>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
>>>>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
>>>>>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
>>>>>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
>>>>>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
>>>>>> legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
>>>>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
>>>>>> has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly
>>>>>> be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm
>>>>>> starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list
>>>>>> mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you
>>>>>> think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list
>>>>>> and I'll point you to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 13:36:22 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:36:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Norbert.
I should still like to know what is a "stake" - the thing that is held by
the stakeholder.
Deirdre

On 10 March 2015 at 12:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:43:45 -0400
> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One thing that seems to be missing in everything that I have read so
> > far is an explanation of "what is a stake"?
>
> Humanity is in the process of a very significant transition to a
> state of organization which is much more globalized and much more
> ICT-based than anything that we have experience with.
>
> In my view, whether democracy(*) will survive this transition is very
> much at stake.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
> (*) I mean "democracy" in the sense of the literal meaning of the
> word, as explained in a recent posting on this list and also at
> http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democracy/
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/39e37638/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Mar 10 14:56:25 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:56:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Democracy (was Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing
 Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference")
In-Reply-To: <8ffde96a1cf64132b81d0c378232ade5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com>
	<54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net>
	<7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au>
	<54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net>
	<38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au>
	<20150309115438.5dc56239@quill>
	<D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<20150309154039.3f510466@quill>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<20150310092548.6f531be9@quill>
	<8ffde96a1cf64132b81d0c378232ade5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20150310195625.470a4036@quill>

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:29:11 +0000
Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> > The literal meaning of δημοκρατία (dēmokratía), in modern language
> > "democracy", is that "it's the people who have the power to rule".
> > This is since ancient times seen in contrast to "the rule of an
> > elite", the ancient Greek term for the latter being ἀριστοκρατία
> > (aristokratía).
> 
> And in that respect none of us really supports "democracy" do we? if
> it means that 'the people' (and who is that, exactly?) has the power
> to hang us without trial (it's called lynching in America), suppress
> minority viewpoints, etc. It's also true that we do have a choice
> other than elite rule and mob rule: rule of law.

Of course the only way in which "rule of 'the people'" can be
implemented is by means of rule of law, with laws which conform to the
universal principles which are recognized as human rights, and which
implement these human rights besides whatever else 'the people' may
decide by means of whatever democratic processes are used for
decision-making.

No decision which addresses a matter to which human rights are relevant
can be democratic if it does not strive to uphold and implement all
human rights which are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Otherwise it would be a decision which effectively or at least
potentially excludes one or more persons (those whose human rights are
violated in a significant way) from "the people who have the power to
rule".

> > How democratic governance, in the sense of that literal meaning, is
> > to be implemented in an increasingly globalized and increasingly
> > ICT-based world (of which the Internet is nowadays already a rather
> > central aspect, and it is widely expected that the centrality of
> > the Internet will continue to grow), that is something that
> > requires discussion and consensus building.
> 
> Yes, but it requires a hell of a lot more than discussion and
> consensus building.

Sure. But discussion and consensus building has to be the first part.

Otherwise, there will be no clarity in regard to what are the concrete
organizational structures that need to be built, and even if someone
had all the necessary insights for building good governance structures,
any attempts to implement those insights would still fail for lack of
acceptance among those who are supposed to make up the relevant polity
(by which word I mean: the particular set of "the people" which is
relevant to a particular system of democratic governance.)

> > In fact much of what goes wrong in the governance of national
> > states which are democratic (or which at least claim to be
> > democratic) can be blamed on the fact that even in such states
> > (despite all the checks and balances and other good countermeasures
> > against elites gaining unreasonable power) there are often still
> > elites which gain a lot of power and abuse it for their own gain;
> > the resulting anger of the people is then exploited by populists.
> 
> Interesting that you attribute all the problems with 'democracy' to
> some small elites, the bad guys, and not to irrational or greedy
> decisions by 'the people' themselves. So the people can never be
> wrong, or never be manipulated? 

Quite on the contrary: I accept the realities that people can be wrong,
irrational and greedy, and that they can potentially be manipulated, as
facts of life that no political system can change. 

And I still advocate for democracy in spite of all that, because the
alternatives are much worse.

At the same time, I advocate for making governance systems more robust
in relation to abuses of various kinds. For example, whatever the
politicians who were part of certain previous governments of Greece did
to accumulate such a huge debt burden, and whatever happened in the
rest of Europe to allow Greece to become part of the Eurozone in spite
of the lack of any effective safeguards in that respect, both of these
sides of the problem were populist abuses by politicians.

In fact, when we have a governance system in which such abuses occur,
that governance system does not qualify as democratic in those regards.

Sure, measures which lead to unsustainable state debt may be popular
with current voters, but the people of future generations had no
say. Whatever happens, people of future generations are going to be
adversely affected in quite significant ways: Either in Greece, or
elsewhere (in the case that other countries take on a major part of
that debt), or everywhere (for example in the case that the debt is made
to disappear through some abuse of the sovereign power of governments,
which IMO would certainly cause a major financial crisis.)

So I don't blame Greek voters because we can't change their human
nature. I also don't blame Greek politicians and I don't blame the
Greek corporate executives who are tangled up with them (as far as I
know not with the current Greek government, but with those previous
Greek governments which ran up that enormous public debt). We can't
change their human nature either. But political system can and
therefore must be changed to make it much more robust to function
appropriately in real life, where all the ugly realities of human
nature will be present, only waiting for opportunities to manifest
themselves.

> > The way to improve political systems in order to reduce this kind of
> > phenomenon is not to give up on the ideal of democracy, but to
> > implement it more effectively, so that there will be less abuse of
> > power by elites, and therefore less public anger, and therefore
> > less opportunity for populists who will try to exploit such anger
> > whenever they 
> 
> I am not giving up on the ideal of democracy, which to me means
> popular sovereignty. There are two things missing from these overly
> simple discussion of democratic governance, however.

Actually I'll freely agree that there are many aspects which I haven't
discussed in my recent posting. Many more than just those two aspects
which you point out below.

> One is that there is a lot about the internet that we _don't_ want to
> be centrally governed. Indeed, its resistance to central control is
> one of the reasons for its success. 
> 
> The other is the role of the market. You can't have a complex,
> post-industrial society without markets, and yet this kind of choice
> or self-governance is always unpopular with politicians, whether of
> democratic or oligarchic stripe, because it limits their power.
> Furthermore, complex market economies introduce a need for expertise
> in regulation. Regulation or intervention in markets that is
> politically popular but ill-informed can be utterly disastrous, as
> various financial crises ranging from the great depression to the
> 2008 mortgage bubble demonstrate. Greek governments who spent more
> than they had were very popular with 'the people.' Paying the debt is
> never popular. Since the Internet is a product entirely of
> market-oriented, neoliberal policies, I am always curious about this
> huge gap in the thinking of democratic governance advocates. 

Of course misguided governance can do harm. Governance which attempts
regulation of aspects of human activity for which no regulation is
needed is typically especially harmful, regardless of whether it
otherwise achieves its intended purpose or not.

I would however insist that in all cases of any doubt or dispute, it
must be decided democratically what precisely those aspects of human
activity are which need formal regulation and which are the aspects
which don't need regulation. These democratic decision processes must
of course take into account human rights and they must take into account
the reality of change. Areas of activity which don't need regulation
today might need it tomorrow, and vice versa.

Bureaucracies tend to have a strong bias in the direction of always
wanting to expand themselves, which sometimes results in them being
advocates for more and heavier regulation. Lawyers as a group benefit
from increasing complexity of the law. Politicians and unelected
government officials have tendencies of being overly supportive of the
desires of big businesses whose lobbyists invite them to a good lunch or
dinner. (Illegitimate desires expressed by lobbyists can go in the
direction of deregulation, to allow companies to act with unlimited
irresponsibility, or in the direction of regulation which would hinder
new market entrants, or regulation which would prevent or at least
delay structural change.) All of these are "human nature of elites"
effects of the kind that I discussed. When discussing governance
systems, we need to be aware of human nature in relation to how people
tend to act when given the opportunity to act in a way that would
benefit them personally or a group that they see themselves as part of,
even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. I see it as part of
what is implied by the literal meaning of the word "democracy" that the
opportunities to give in to this kind of temptations must be minimized.

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 15:12:10 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:12:10 -0700
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <54FF2885.3080401@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <54FF1E45.6040607@itforchange.net> <54FF2885.3080401@apc.org>
Message-ID: <02a601d05b66$1c8a93a0$559fbae0$@gmail.com>

Anriette,

 

Are you denying that there has been a concerted, prolonged and very well-resourced attempt to insert multistakeholderism as the dominant mode of governance in the Internet sphere?  And further that several of us (which provided one of the main backgrounds to the JNC) have been pointing to this agenda for a very long time? And further are you denying that you/APC, Jeremy (EFF?), Global Partners, ISOC and others have been strong supporters of this initiative through your/their involvement in/support for the various forums, panels, high level commissions, the NMI etc. etc. through which this agenda is being promoted. And further is it not evident to even the most naïve observers that the intention here is not simply about words but rather about the how global (Internet) Governance institutions and operational mechanisms will be structured going forward.  

 

What is interesting/important about the current discussion is that for the first time there is the visible means to connect the dots--the promotion of MSism by the USG and its international and corporate allies and others in "CS" and academe; combined with the suppression (“red lining”) of democracy in those contexts.  The issue of "coded" words, and invisible linkages etc.etc. is a complete red herring since one presumes that sophisticated actors such as an official USG representative know precisely the difference between a commitment to democracy, to multilateralism, and/or to MSism, and their decision in this instance as with others was not about "code" but about "law", in this context one need only point to the USG's full-throated and continuously expressed commitment to MSism to the exclusion of all other Internet governance modes <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/internet-freedom-and-post-snowden-global-internet-governance/> . (The USA Ambassador in his brief concluding statement to the WCIT as an example, mentioned MSism 17 times and democracy not even once!)

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: March 10, 2015 10:23 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints

 

Parminder, APC has never asked for removal of the term decmoratic. It has been in our formal texts and it is in the NETmundial statement which we feel builds on the Tunis Agenda positively.

 

Nor has anyone else on this list asked for the removal of that term in a general sense.

 

What was raised was that in the context of the Tunis Agenda, the term 'democratic' occurs consistently with the term multilateral. This has often been actively interpreted by countries who oppose multistakeholder approaches, and who are not in favour of civil society participation as meaning 'among governments'.

 

What we believe the term means and should mean becomes secondary to what it means in the 'code' of this particular UN process.

 

That is all.

 

No one at the UNESCO meeting "strongly asked for the "removal" of the term "democratic multistakeholder".

 

Richard asked for it to be included in the document but it never made it in for the reasons mentioned above and earlier in this discussion.

 

I am not saying that there are no other agendas (including hidden

agendas) in multistakeholder OR intergovernmental processes... but I do think your suggestion that there is an actively anti-democratic agenda among others in civil society is inaccurate, and comes across as an effort to discredit our motives and our work.

 

Anriette

 

 

On 10/03/2015 18:39, parminder wrote:

> 

> 

> On Tuesday 10 March 2015 06:43 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

>> Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't 

>> need these institutions and that we should not participate in them 

>> and make them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as 

>> you say, ignore their democratic deficits.

> 

> Wolfgang and Anriette, I have not been able to understand who here has 

> been ignoring democratic deficits in 'these institutions' and, 

> further, how by asking to retain references to democracy and 

> democratic in IG documents, that are increasingly peppered with the MS 

> term (which efforts btw are not to be considered as wordsmith-ing), 

> one may be contributing to ignoring any kind of democratic deficit.

>> These deficits exist at national level as well.

> 

> Exactly, and still there seem to be no proposals around to replace 

> democratic republic of India or South Africa with Multistakholder 

> entity of India or South Africa. Efforts in such kind of directions 

> however have begun at the global level, of which the recent UNESCO doc 

> is a testimony. This, is the problem that some of us are trying to 

> highlight and address, and I dont see it as a small problem.

> 

> We seek to address national level democratic deficits by trying to 

> improve and increase democracy, which is rather ill-served by 

> replacing this key political ideal of 'democracy' by new political 

> terms which undermine people's sovereignty and democratic rights. 

> Similarly at the global level.

>> Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing 

>> intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.

> 

> Yes, but only as long as these multistakeholder (MS) approaches do not 

> seek to supplant these processes - you cannot make a set of processes 

> more inclusive and transparent by supplanting them - which is the 

> problem that is being sought to be addressed. This problem is 

> represented in the insistence that 'democratic' be removed but the MS 

> term retained in a key global normative document related to IG.

> 

> It is worth repeated a hundred times that no one, including JNC, asked 

> for removal of the MS term, but people expressly and strongly asked 

> for the removal of the 'democratic' term, and got away with it. We are 

> simply saying that they should not have got away with it. And many 

> here seem to think, that is all right - this is the problem, and at 

> the root of the current discussion.

> 

> parminder

> 

>> Anriette

>> 

>> 

>> On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)

>> wrote:

>>> Dear all,

>>> 

>>> just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance 

>>> institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate 

>>> international cooperation in the economic and social field can be 

>>> considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the 

>>> world according to the principle of geographical representation, the 

>>> largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play 

>>> its role. In  IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still 

>>> has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, 

>>> but in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major 

>>> trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main 

>>> decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN 

>>> bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in 

>>> the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic 

>>> accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations 

>>> and groupings is very limited, the more so as the

>>    real dec

>> isions are taken there.

>>> Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to 

>>> neglect their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that 

>>> they cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be 

>>> done for multistakeholderism in its present form.

>>> 

>>> Wolfgang Benedek

>>> 

>>> Von: Michael Gurstein 

>>> < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com%3cmailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>

>>> Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10

>>> An:

>>> " <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org%3cmailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org%3e> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"

>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org%3cmailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

>>> >, Wolfgang Benedek 

>>> < <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at%3cmailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>,

>>> " <mailto:nb at bollow.ch%3cmailto:nb at bollow.ch%3e> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <nb at bo 

>>> llow.ch< <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>

>>> Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus 

>>> pro-democracy viewpoints

>>> 

>>> 

>>> I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very 

>>> informed commentary with most of which I agree...

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

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

>>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request

>>> @lists.igcaucus.org> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] 

>>> On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang

>>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at%3cmailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)

>>> Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM

>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.or

>>> g>;

>>> Norbert Bollow

>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus 

>>> pro-democracy viewpoints

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Dear Norbert,

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the 

>>> discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on 

>>> multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed 

>>> that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and 

>>> sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of 

>>> information, participation, political power and funding as weaker 

>>> the results. One could also argue as more democratic the  

>>> relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is the 

>>> issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which 

>>> each cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that 

>>> inequalities in resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so 

>>> donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> [MG] agree

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities 

>>> of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it 

>>> the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like 

>>> "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being 

>>> transparent about the objectives of the different partners.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> [MG] agree

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it 

>>> to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on 

>>> the state level among citizens.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> [MG] agree

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of 

>>> international economic organizations, which mainly means more 

>>> participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve 

>>> the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further 

>>> democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but 

>>> much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners 

>>> can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for 

>>> all stakeholders.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in 

>>> that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space 

>>> comparable to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree 

>>> that if globally there was an attempt to create those institutions 

>>> at this time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we 

>>> are currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods 

>>> institutions were established at the end of a devastating world war 

>>> which was only brought to a successful conclusion through the 

>>> extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.  Notably 

>>> also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was 

>>> still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is 

>>> derived from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood 

>>> in its broadest and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder 

>>> decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and 

>>> legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder 

>>> interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve 

>>> “further democratization” of existing institutions but rather what 

>>> is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for 

>>> institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned 

>>> that they would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of 

>>> characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear 

>>> that they have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions 

>>> which as you have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled 

>>> by the wealthy and the powerful.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> M

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Wolfgang Benedek

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

>>> t

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter

>>> < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch%3cmailto:nb at bollow.ch> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>:

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>>> Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a 

>>>> significant divide which is in existence within civil society in 

>>>> relation to Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:

>>>> a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by 

>>>> elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, 

>>>> and it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the 

>>>> status which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance 

>>>> must be democratic. This is often done by insisting on the 

>>>> importance of multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.

>>>> b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting 

>>>> that Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy 

>>>> viewpoints may involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes 

>>>> for Internet governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy 

>>>> viewpoints would necessarily agree in any way with 

>>>> multistakeholderism), but the principle that governance must be 

>>>> democratic would always be seen as having greater importance and a 

>>>> higher priority than any endorsement of multistakeholderism.

>>> >From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those 

>>> >who

>>> 

>>>> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a 

>>>> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward 

>>>> for Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.

>>>> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some 

>>>> of those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, 

>>>> Jeremy and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other 

>>>> countries who had instructions from their governments to support 

>>>> positions of the US government in relation to multistakeholderism 

>>>> upon any such request

>>> >from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of

>>> 

>>>> consensus text along those lines.

>>>> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.

>>>> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization 

>>>> of "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I 

>>>> have written this with every intention of accurately summarizing 

>>>> the viewpoints of both sides.

>>>> Greetings,

>>>> Norbert

>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100

>>>> Norbert Bollow < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch%3cmailto:nb at bollow.ch> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:

>>>>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to 

>>>>> concrete proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective 

>>>>> maybe wasn't clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear 

>>>>> enough that those general references which Jeremy has given to 

>>>>> vast bodies of written words do nothing at all to answer this 

>>>>> question), even if it is true that there are vast bodies of 

>>>>> Internet governance related text which is mostly written from 

>>>>> pro-multistakeholderist(*)

>>>>> perspectives:

>>>>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link 

>>>>> to my proposalhttp://WisdomTaskForce.org  and clarified that

>>>>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't 

>>>>> posting it as a JNC position, and

>>>>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, 

>>>>> of which I will notify this mailing list when it has been 

>>>>> published, and

>>>>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for 

>>>>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy, 

>>>>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to 

>>>>> reach consensus.

>>>>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following 

>>>>> exact

>>>>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which 

>>>>> it (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the 

>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"

>>>>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of 

>>>>> concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.

>>>>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"

>>>>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of 

>>>>> developing

>>>>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not 

>>>>> always possible to reach consensus.

>>>>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I 

>>>>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to 

>>>>> proposals for generally addressing the challenge of developing 

>>>>> *global* public policy in relation to the Internet, without 

>>>>> overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach consensus.

>>>>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean 

>>>>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how 

>>>>> conflicts of interest and conflicting concerns of different 

>>>>> stakeholders should be resolved. This category of public policy 

>>>>> matters is in contrast to purely technical matters where the 

>>>>> disagreements are about questions of technical nature, i.e. "what 

>>>>> is technically a better

>>>>> solution?")

>>>>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going 

>>>>> to agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is 

>>>>> expressed, the discourse has been moved forward a bit.

>>>>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the 

>>>>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in 

>>>>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result 

>>>>> in going around in circles.

>>>>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to 

>>>>> essentially the same question as it being a "lean and mean 

>>>>> question". I find that characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"

>>>>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a 

>>>>> vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.

>>>>> And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see 

>>>>> it as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.

>>>>> Greetings,

>>>>> Norbert

>>>>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll 

>>>>> make another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the 

>>>>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy 

>>>>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that 

>>>>> description of this distinction.

>>>>> On Sun, 8 Mar

>>>>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm 

>>>>> < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:

>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow 

>>>>>> < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch%3cmailto:nb at bollow.ch> nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:

>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm 

>>>>>>> < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:

>>>>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it 

>>>>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the 

>>>>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete 

>>>>>>>> proposals than you do!

>>>>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, 

>>>>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?

>>>>>>> ( <http://WisdomTaskForce.org> http://WisdomTaskForce.org  .)

>>>>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up 

>>>>>> on.  Start at GigaNet ( <http://giga-net.org/> http://giga-net.org/).  For a less 

>>>>>> academic, higher-level outline, also look through the submissions 

>>>>>> to NETmundial ( <http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs> http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For 

>>>>>> my own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I 

>>>>>> published over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a 

>>>>>> multi-stakeholder body that makes public policy recommendations, 

>>>>>> and released it under Creative Commons 

>>>>>> athttps://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-

>>>>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none 

>>>>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.

>>>>>  <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globali> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globali

>>>>> zing

>>>>> -ia

>>>>> na/)

>>>>>> count for anything?

>>>>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good 

>>>>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started 

>>>>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than 

>>>>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can 

>>>>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this 

>>>>>> in the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO 

>>>>>> side-meeting that some of us attended - but there's an 

>>>>>> announcement coming soon and I'm not going to steal its thunder.

>>>>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real 

>>>>>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're 

>>>>>> not satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to 

>>>>>> transcend statist global governance, which you don't accept is 

>>>>>> democratically legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.

>>>>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because 

>>>>>> it has been going around in circles.  Everything that could 

>>>>>> possibly be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  

>>>>>> I'm starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to 

>>>>>> list mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything 

>>>>>> that you think you don't already have a response to, write to me 

>>>>>> off list and I'll point you to it.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> ____________________________________________________________

>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>>>        <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>>> To be removed from the list, visit:

>>>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

>>> 

>>> For all other list information and functions, see:

>>>        <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>>>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

>>> 

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

>>> 

>> 

>> 

>> ____________________________________________________________

>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>>        <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>> To be removed from the list, visit:

>>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

>> 

>> For all other list information and functions, see:

>>        <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>>        <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

>> 

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

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>       <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

> To be removed from the list, visit:

>       <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

> 

> For all other list information and functions, see:

>       <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>       <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

> 

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

> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/1c92e511/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Mar 10 15:21:34 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 20:21:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <e3b9f20ef0d4412291a4f9b99e4793bc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
	<20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
	<D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
	<D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<5FBE4D2E-A6A2-4BF2-A7C8-158E21856F3E@theglobaljournal.net>
	<e3b9f20ef0d4412291a4f9b99e4793bc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20150310202134.619e4d53@quill>

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:46:15 +0000
Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> First, I've been criticizing the term "MS" for years, I recognize its
> limitations and have stoutly resisted its transformation into a
> religion.

By the way, I certainly agree that Milton definitely deserves
recognition and respect for these efforts, including in regard to the
many insightful blog posts that he has made in this context over the
years. I write this while disagreeing with some aspects of those
blog posts, in particular I disagree with what I see as a stance of
extremely pro-capitalist economic liberalism. 

> The reason I resist JNC-style calls for democracy, however, is (and I
> thought I explained this in my first post) that JNC seems to be
> advocating either a reassertion of state-based national
> government/multilateral 'democracy', or an isomorphic translation of
> 20th century nation state democracy to the global level. If that shoe
> doesn't fit you, or anyone else in JNC, don't wear it.

To my best knowledge this shoe doesn't fit anyone in JNC. In any case
I'm certainly not going to wear it.

> I also don't
> see their version of democracy as sufficiently seasoned with
> liberalism, and democracy without liberalism is just mob rule, which
> on a global scale seems disastrous to me.

JNC's demands for democratic governance could be described much more
accurately as seeking to prevent mob role, and seeking to end it where
it currently exists. 

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)
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  Tue Mar 10 15:34:34 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 20:34:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
	<20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
	<D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
	<D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
	<CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>
	<CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150310203434.6c79c30f@quill>

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:36:22 -0400
Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> I should still like to know what is a "stake" - the thing that is
> held by the stakeholder.

My understanding is that whatever is /at stake/ from the perspective of
a given stakeholder, in the sense of being potentially gained or lost,
is the relevant "stake", and it is "held" as a hope (if it's something
to be potentially gained) or "held fast" (possibly in fear, if it's
something that could potentially be lost).

Disclaimer: These thoughts are shared on the basis of much less
reflection than would go into anything that I write e.g. about
democracy or about human rights, as I am not an advocate for any of the
various theories that are based on the notion of stakeholders, nor am I
an advocate of multistakeholderism.

Greetings,
Norbert


> On 10 March 2015 at 12:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:43:45 -0400
> > Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One thing that seems to be missing in everything that I have read
> > > so far is an explanation of "what is a stake"?
> >
> > Humanity is in the process of a very significant transition to a
> > state of organization which is much more globalized and much more
> > ICT-based than anything that we have experience with.
> >
> > In my view, whether democracy(*) will survive this transition is
> > very much at stake.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> > (*) I mean "democracy" in the sense of the literal meaning of the
> > word, as explained in a recent posting on this list and also at
> > http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democracy/
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your 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 tarakiyee at apc.org  Tue Mar 10 16:08:47 2015
From: tarakiyee at apc.org (Tarakiyee)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:08:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150310203434.6c79c30f@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>	<20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>	<D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>	<0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>	<D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>	<54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>	<CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>	<20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>	<CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com> <20150310203434.6c79c30f@
 quill>
Message-ID: <54FF4F4F.8040201@apc.org>

A stakeholder is a person or a group that has an interest in something.
In the context of internet policy, it could mean a
government/inter-governmental body responsible for
designing/implementing said internet policy, and people and groups who
are required to implement the policy or *most importantly* are affected
by said policy.

Best regards,
Tarakiyee

On 10/03/15 21:34, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:36:22 -0400
> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I should still like to know what is a "stake" - the thing that is
>> held by the stakeholder.
> 
> My understanding is that whatever is /at stake/ from the perspective of
> a given stakeholder, in the sense of being potentially gained or lost,
> is the relevant "stake", and it is "held" as a hope (if it's something
> to be potentially gained) or "held fast" (possibly in fear, if it's
> something that could potentially be lost).
> 
> Disclaimer: These thoughts are shared on the basis of much less
> reflection than would go into anything that I write e.g. about
> democracy or about human rights, as I am not an advocate for any of the
> various theories that are based on the notion of stakeholders, nor am I
> an advocate of multistakeholderism.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
>> On 10 March 2015 at 12:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:43:45 -0400
>>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One thing that seems to be missing in everything that I have read
>>>> so far is an explanation of "what is a stake"?
>>>
>>> Humanity is in the process of a very significant transition to a
>>> state of organization which is much more globalized and much more
>>> ICT-based than anything that we have experience with.
>>>
>>> In my view, whether democracy(*) will survive this transition is
>>> very much at stake.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>> (*) I mean "democracy" in the sense of the literal meaning of the
>>> word, as explained in a recent posting on this list and also at
>>> http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democracy/
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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 anriette at apc.org  Tue Mar 10 16:20:46 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:20:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150310202134.619e4d53@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>	<20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>	<D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>	<0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>	<D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>	<5FBE4D2E-A6A2-4BF2-A7C8-158E21856F3E@theglobaljournal.net>	<e3b9f20ef0d4412291a4f9b99e4793bc@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20150310202134.619e4d53@quill>
Message-ID: <54FF521E.50703@apc.org>

Thanks for your constructive responses Norbert. I have really
appreciated them.

Anriette


On 10/03/2015 21:21, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:46:15 +0000
> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
>> First, I've been criticizing the term "MS" for years, I recognize its
>> limitations and have stoutly resisted its transformation into a
>> religion.
> 
> By the way, I certainly agree that Milton definitely deserves
> recognition and respect for these efforts, including in regard to the
> many insightful blog posts that he has made in this context over the
> years. I write this while disagreeing with some aspects of those
> blog posts, in particular I disagree with what I see as a stance of
> extremely pro-capitalist economic liberalism. 
> 
>> The reason I resist JNC-style calls for democracy, however, is (and I
>> thought I explained this in my first post) that JNC seems to be
>> advocating either a reassertion of state-based national
>> government/multilateral 'democracy', or an isomorphic translation of
>> 20th century nation state democracy to the global level. If that shoe
>> doesn't fit you, or anyone else in JNC, don't wear it.
> 
> To my best knowledge this shoe doesn't fit anyone in JNC. In any case
> I'm certainly not going to wear it.
> 
>> I also don't
>> see their version of democracy as sufficiently seasoned with
>> liberalism, and democracy without liberalism is just mob rule, which
>> on a global scale seems disastrous to me.
> 
> JNC's demands for democratic governance could be described much more
> accurately as seeking to prevent mob role, and seeking to end it where
> it currently exists. 
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)
> JustNetCoalition.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 16:22:06 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:22:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150310203434.6c79c30f@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill> <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310203434.6c79c30f@quill>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6j6EuOaY92UeGCZ42tsMmiU4SBsQN+V-mKgfGgsUwEQQ@mail.gmail.com>

We're getting at cross purposes between "stake" and "at stake".
A "stakeholder" holds a stake - an interest, an outcome??
I would be interested to hear from all of the discussants what they
consider this "stake" to be. It may not be one thing; it could be a whole
range of things. It might be easier to describe by saying what is NOT a
stake, what does NOT qualify one to be part of the debate.
And does "one" qualify, or is it only groups that hold stakes?
I'm hoping for clarification
Thank you
Deirdre

On 10 March 2015 at 15:34, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:36:22 -0400
> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I should still like to know what is a "stake" - the thing that is
> > held by the stakeholder.
>
> My understanding is that whatever is /at stake/ from the perspective of
> a given stakeholder, in the sense of being potentially gained or lost,
> is the relevant "stake", and it is "held" as a hope (if it's something
> to be potentially gained) or "held fast" (possibly in fear, if it's
> something that could potentially be lost).
>
> Disclaimer: These thoughts are shared on the basis of much less
> reflection than would go into anything that I write e.g. about
> democracy or about human rights, as I am not an advocate for any of the
> various theories that are based on the notion of stakeholders, nor am I
> an advocate of multistakeholderism.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> > On 10 March 2015 at 12:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:43:45 -0400
> > > Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One thing that seems to be missing in everything that I have read
> > > > so far is an explanation of "what is a stake"?
> > >
> > > Humanity is in the process of a very significant transition to a
> > > state of organization which is much more globalized and much more
> > > ICT-based than anything that we have experience with.
> > >
> > > In my view, whether democracy(*) will survive this transition is
> > > very much at stake.
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Norbert
> > >
> > > (*) I mean "democracy" in the sense of the literal meaning of the
> > > word, as explained in a recent posting on this list and also at
> > > http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democracy/
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >
> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >
> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/f782481c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 16:37:33 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:37:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <54FF4F4F.8040201@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill> <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310203434.6c79c30f@quill> <54FF4F4F.8040201@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4GwMK8OG-e-W+5Yu5OrjVYyu_6eAbaD_O2kPbYqarqfg@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Tarakiyee.
Taking your "most importantly" point this seems to mean everyone who
currently uses the internet, and possibly everyone who chooses to use the
internet in future? And possibly those who choose not to, since outcomes of
the policy may affect them too (I'm thinking of things like centrally
stored health records and registry (birth marriage and death) type
information).
Is it possible to tighten this a bit? And is everyone one, is it groups or
is it both?
I know these are very difficult questions, but if acceptable governance is
possible then we should be able to find acceptable answers.
Deirdre

On 10 March 2015 at 16:08, Tarakiyee <tarakiyee at apc.org> wrote:

> A stakeholder is a person or a group that has an interest in something.
> In the context of internet policy, it could mean a
> government/inter-governmental body responsible for
> designing/implementing said internet policy, and people and groups who
> are required to implement the policy or *most importantly* are affected
> by said policy.
>
> Best regards,
> Tarakiyee
>
> On 10/03/15 21:34, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:36:22 -0400
> > Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I should still like to know what is a "stake" - the thing that is
> >> held by the stakeholder.
> >
> > My understanding is that whatever is /at stake/ from the perspective of
> > a given stakeholder, in the sense of being potentially gained or lost,
> > is the relevant "stake", and it is "held" as a hope (if it's something
> > to be potentially gained) or "held fast" (possibly in fear, if it's
> > something that could potentially be lost).
> >
> > Disclaimer: These thoughts are shared on the basis of much less
> > reflection than would go into anything that I write e.g. about
> > democracy or about human rights, as I am not an advocate for any of the
> > various theories that are based on the notion of stakeholders, nor am I
> > an advocate of multistakeholderism.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> >> On 10 March 2015 at 12:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:43:45 -0400
> >>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> One thing that seems to be missing in everything that I have read
> >>>> so far is an explanation of "what is a stake"?
> >>>
> >>> Humanity is in the process of a very significant transition to a
> >>> state of organization which is much more globalized and much more
> >>> ICT-based than anything that we have experience with.
> >>>
> >>> In my view, whether democracy(*) will survive this transition is
> >>> very much at stake.
> >>>
> >>> Greetings,
> >>> Norbert
> >>>
> >>> (*) I mean "democracy" in the sense of the literal meaning of the
> >>> word, as explained in a recent posting on this list and also at
> >>> http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democracy/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/9d60b59c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From garth.graham at telus.net  Tue Mar 10 19:49:06 2015
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:49:06 -0700
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D60A7360-B14C-44D5-B868-345A0543C497@telus.net>

On Mar 10, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing that seems to be missing in everything that I have read so far is an explanation of "what is a stake"? I would add to this …… - is a stakeholder an individual or a group?

 In my view of the nature of a digital age, the only possible stakeholder is the individual, or as ICANN’s euphemism might put it, the individual end-user.  The primary challenge of the digital age is not privacy or security or even social justice.  What is at stake is the individual’s autonomy to choose how to embody his or her self in the world.  Although we are defined in social contexts, the Internet was designed to support a way of connecting in those contexts that makes the choices about connection intrinsic to the individual.  The Internet supports systems that distribute functions, not systems that centralize (globalize), or decentralize.  What I fear is any attempt to block the intention of its design.

 We now live in a world where the “100 most widely used websites are monitored by more than 1,300 firms,” tracking 50-70 “attributes,” in order to provide “programmatic buying” of the data produced by our digital lives. (Alexandra Suich. Little Brother: special report on advertising and technology. The Economist, September 13/14).  The digital simulation of my “self,” in the name of targeting my consumption is occurring in real time and I’ve agreed to it.  Suich says that I should think of my smart phone as a “mini-me.” As a taxpayer, one thing I really resent about my state secret police wanting to profile me to make my world safe for democracy is that they could already buy the profile cheaper than they could make it.

We now live in a world where no password is safe.  “The age of the password has come to an end,” and “it’s time to try something new.” (Mat Honan. Hacked. Wired, December 2012). Honan sees the new system of identification as hinging “ on who we are and what we do: where we go and when, what we have with us, how we act when we’re there.”  A multifaceted process that can best be described as an “identity ecosystem” will identify us.  It will “allow our movements and metrics to be tracked in all sorts of ways and to have those movements and metrics tied to our actual identity. “ If we deviate from the pattern expressed by the simulation of our self, then the systems we decide to have secure will sound the alarm and re-lock the door.

What is at stake is the question of who owns the digital story that my identity ecosystem tells, and the simulation of my future behaviours produced by the attributes of me that are tracked?    I have always believed that the answer to that question has to be built into the Internet protocols, not into the monitoring and authentication practices of corporations and governments.
  

On Mar 8, 2015, at 8:31 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> Most MSists are bodyguards to the status-quo.

On Mar 8, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> Let's get back to true CS work.

 It seems to me that, except for Milton Mueller’s “new organically developed internet institutions” that “bypass existing power structures” in “emphasizing individual rights,” all sides of this argument so far are “bodyguards of the status quo."  From my perspective, the true role of CS cannot be separated from the context of its dependent relationship with business and government.  I buy Manuel Castells’ argument that the state in the digital age “is a network state,” where corporations and governments have invented a construct called “civil society” in order to “diffuse conflict and increase legitimacy” through decentralization.  The “true CS work” involves outsourcing of the responsibilities that the other two partners don’t want.

I take it as a given that the Internet’s existence symbolizes new drivers of change that destabilize all existing systems.  That includes the way that conventional political systems address the allocation of power, whether they act on the right, the center or the left.  Beware when the left-leaning advocates of social justice set up the straw dog dichotomy of MS versus democracy.  What they are actually doing is defending the existing framing of political reality that justifies the continuation of their own existence.  The false dichotomy they are stridently defending is a reactionary tactic that uses Internet Governance as a means to other political ends.  The wonder to me is not that they would do this, but that other members of the framing it represents still rise to the bait.  For example …...
 

On Mar 9, 2015, at 3:44 AM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations of CS acting in the public interest.  This can improve the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for all.
 
If I am right that it’s the evolution of the identity ecosystem from the perspective of the individual that’s at stake, then Wolfgang Benedek’s re-statement of the problem, however reasonable it may be, also assumes the reality of the way that conventional political systems address the allocation of power.


On Mar 8, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> I should say that I'm very unhappy with the state of democratic governance in my own country ……..  My choice is to redouble my efforts in trying to make democracy work better in my country.


And I too am unhappy for the disruptive drift in Canadian politics.  In the name of increased security, we are advancing rapidly towards authoritarian rule by fear.  But what I’m unhappy about is the state of “governance” itself, and I am working to make “governance” in open distributed systems work better.  Milton’s new organically developed internet institutions that bypass existing power structures in emphasizing individual rights, do so by reference to distributed systems.  In those systems, the structural rules are intrinsic to all of their individual participants, not externally imposed as the conventional political systems still assume.  In the longer run, external motivation is never effective in changing individual behaviour.  The differences that make a difference in our behaviours are intrinsic to ourselves.  So we’d better not take the question of who owns the expression of our identity lightly.

 

 

 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 10 20:29:43 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 05:59:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6j6EuOaY92UeGCZ42tsMmiU4SBsQN+V-mKgfGgsUwEQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com> <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill> <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com> <20150310203434.6c79c30f!
 @quill> <
 CAMz5XN6j6EuOaY92UeGCZ42tsMmiU4SBsQN+V-mKgfGgsUwEQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3E755AEA-A66E-4F9A-B1AC-2F4C62E254CD@hserus.net>

Stakeholder is one concept that can be quite broadly interpreted in that anyone and everyone can feel they have a stake in something. I guess the test most people apply for active stakeholders is -

1. Those that wish to contribute time, money and effort to work together with other stakeholders for a common goal

2. Those whose contributions are restricted to exerting all their efforts towards political control of s stakeholder driven process (a category that I refer to as steakholders)

--srs (iPad)

> On 11-Mar-2015, at 01:52, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> We're getting at cross purposes between "stake" and "at stake".
> A "stakeholder" holds a stake - an interest, an outcome??
> I would be interested to hear from all of the discussants what they consider this "stake" to be. It may not be one thing; it could be a whole range of things. It might be easier to describe by saying what is NOT a stake, what does NOT qualify one to be part of the debate.
> And does "one" qualify, or is it only groups that hold stakes?
> I'm hoping for clarification
> Thank you
> Deirdre
> 
>> On 10 March 2015 at 15:34, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:36:22 -0400
>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > I should still like to know what is a "stake" - the thing that is
>> > held by the stakeholder.
>> 
>> My understanding is that whatever is /at stake/ from the perspective of
>> a given stakeholder, in the sense of being potentially gained or lost,
>> is the relevant "stake", and it is "held" as a hope (if it's something
>> to be potentially gained) or "held fast" (possibly in fear, if it's
>> something that could potentially be lost).
>> 
>> Disclaimer: These thoughts are shared on the basis of much less
>> reflection than would go into anything that I write e.g. about
>> democracy or about human rights, as I am not an advocate for any of the
>> various theories that are based on the notion of stakeholders, nor am I
>> an advocate of multistakeholderism.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> > On 10 March 2015 at 12:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:43:45 -0400
>> > > Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > One thing that seems to be missing in everything that I have read
>> > > > so far is an explanation of "what is a stake"?
>> > >
>> > > Humanity is in the process of a very significant transition to a
>> > > state of organization which is much more globalized and much more
>> > > ICT-based than anything that we have experience with.
>> > >
>> > > In my view, whether democracy(*) will survive this transition is
>> > > very much at stake.
>> > >
>> > > Greetings,
>> > > Norbert
>> > >
>> > > (*) I mean "democracy" in the sense of the literal meaning of the
>> > > word, as explained in a recent posting on this list and also at
>> > > http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democracy/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >
>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> > >
>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150311/f111adb7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 21:28:58 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:28:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <99A63972-A90D-4432-B342-5F3AF63BB377@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <99A63972-A90D-4432-B342-5F3AF63BB377@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <00e801d05b9a$bfb51030$3f1f3090$@gmail.com>

David,

 

The issue is not simply about not being able to reach consensus although of
course, that is one significant issue of conflict.  Others include disputes
over internal rules governing stakeholder groups, rules governing MS
processes themselves, rules governing the creation of stakeholder decision
frameworks and so on and so on.  These issues aren't necessarily about
differences of opinion concerning the (policy) issues at hand so much as
they are about managing decision structures which are organized on the basis
of "interests" rather than (for example) "constituencies".  Since MS
processes are inherently "interest" based then the resolution of
disputes/conflicts tends to be a matter of who is stronger, richer, more
powerful, (or perhaps in the technical sphere-more knowledgeable,
technically proficient etc.) and thus can ensure that their "interests"
prevail. The "fairness" principle that one could invoke in a democratic
context makes little sense in an interest based stakeholder context.

 

You asked for examples of disputes/conflicts within MS processes which were
not reasonably (or dare I say fairly) resolved and I previously in this
discussion at least twice pointed to several including:

 

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-m
y-adventures-in-stakeholderland/

 

One from the much vaunted and now almost sanctified Sao Paulo NM meeting:

 

I should also note that the much vaunted model multistakeholder process at
the NetMundial event in Brazil did more or less precisely the same
thing--giving over to an unrepresentative and more or less completely
non-transparent academic (stakeholder) grouping -- GIGAnet -- responsibility
for "academic" participation in the various NM structures. 

 

GIGAnet then  went on to assign all of the relevant places to GIGAnet
insiders over the objections of the academic component of the Community
Informatics community (a grouping numbering some 1500 of which perhaps 40%
are academics or researchers with a professional interest in ICTs and
Development, a subject more or less completely absent in the GIGAnet
membership).  

 

These actions were confirmed by the silence of the NM organizers (the
unreasonableness and unfairness of this was brought firmly to their
attention on several occasions).  The direct consequence of this was that
the NM meeting and subsequent document more or less completely ignores the
significant issues involved in ICTs and Development and which moreover were
as I'm sure you know, the fundamental driver of WSIS of which the NM was
meant to be some sort of a lineal descendent.

 

And as a third example perhaps I could point to the basis of this discussion
itself, the purportedly "multistakeholder process" for developing the
Outcome Statement of the UNESCO conference.

 

an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes might
actually operate in practice, one need only reflect on the processes of
decision making that went into this purportedly multistakeholder Output
Document -- the highly questionable and completely non-transparent selection
of the editorial committee (from a small circle of the Internet Governance
elite), where potentially critical but equally qualified participants were
excluded, where dissenting voices and positions were suppressed, with a
complete lack of accountability to presumed constituencies or "stakeholder"
groups,  and where the outcome was presented quite falsely as a "consensus"
document and output of the associated meeting."

 

Also, you asked for a positive example. let me try to give you one that just
passed by my field of vision.  I'm working with some groups in the
Philippines and elsewhere in the area of Open Government data.  The intent
here is multiple but in this particular context the intent is to get access
to government data to facilitate grassroots advocates in intervening into
processes concerning the allocation of education funds.  The Government of
the Philippines has evidently enacted legislation that mandates what they
are calling a process of "constructive engagement" which is activity by
government to work in partnership with and to facilitate and support the
activities of civil society (and presumably the private sector) to
accomplish objectives which are agreed upon to be in the public interest.
Here the democratic processes has resulted in the definition of rules which
will allow for the effective engagement of public servants with the range of
stakeholder groups, in this, case concerned with grassroots education
budgeting. I'm not sure how applicable the lessons (or modalities) here are
applicable to IG issues (and of course, I've oversimplified a quite complex
and somewhat localized set of processes) but I'm struck at how this
democratic governmental system is finding ways of responding to some of the
dilemma's amd complexities which MSism is purporting to resolve but within
an overall framework which is both democratic and one that ensures an
overall control in support of the public interest.

 

M

 

 

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: March 9, 2015 11:30 PM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: Shawna Finnegan; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
the Dots Conference"

 

 

On 6 Mar 2015, at 7:20 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:


Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they
will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditions
of presumed harmony and good will.  My observation is that MS processes do
not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major problem
given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involved
specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably
different interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various
kinds. 

 

It is certainly true that multi-stakeholder processes do not work well in
situations in which consensus absolutely cannot be reached. Conflict and
consensus are different things, however - getting a group of conflicted
parties together knowing that they only way they can ensure their priorities
are represented in the final outcome is by being part of a consensus is a
very good mechanism for resolving conflict. 

 





 My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or stress
it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged
insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) and
proceed as though nothing had occurred - in this way they are achieving
consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects
nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and
satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to
divergent positions and interests.

 

            It would be helpful if you could point to examples where you
think this has occurred. 

            I'm not disagreeing per se, there are cases where the situation
you describe, or something like it occurs, though I wouldn't characterise it
the same way. For example, when one participant threatens to walk away from
a process because they don't get the outcome they want, then sure, other
participants may close ranks to minimise damage to the forum itself, in
which all have some investment - but this isn't always negative. 

            I would say the answer here is to ensure that such fora are open
enough that the power of 'insiders' is minimised, and those who feel their
interests would be harmed are able to remedy their concerns by becoming
participants. 

 


Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by
elites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most
cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of
effective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic
elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these
processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the
absence of some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing
accountability, transparency etc.

 

I always find the way in which this form of analysis makes civil society
participants (many of whom are doing so on a volunteer basis and supporting
themselves by other means, and most of whom are chronically under funded and
overworked) part of a social/economic elite that have captured the process
for their own purposes. 

            But of course I agree that we could improve effective
accountability and representability, though I acknowledge that the latter is
proving difficult in practice. 

            But the real issue here is the obvious massive statist bias here
- why should we assume that states, many of which have a long history of
corruption, and many of which clearly have enormous problems with
transparency, are the only effective means of enforcing accountability and
transparency? Again, we are asked to believe that states are the only
effective means of ensuring these things, but when processes like the TPPA
and TTIP are shown as clear massive failures of transparency and
accountability, I doubt we will have an answer. 





  In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which
ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of value.  Do
you really think that an under or non-resourced civil society (or government
such as those found in many LDC's for that matter) will be able to resist
the kind of resources which can and will be deployed to game those decision
making processes in favour of elite and dominant interests.

 

            I say only that we will have more chance of getting a better
result from open transparent processes than we do from government led trade
processes. 

            There has to be more than a negative critique of
multi-stakeholder processes here - there needs to be a contrasting positive
example. So far, the obvious examples of government led processes in the
same policy area are pretty much all clearly worse. You have to show an
example decision making process that is clearly better, not imagine a
process that you think would be better if it existed. 

 

            Regards

 

                        David

 






I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government
(along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has
been violating human rights and destroying societies long before
'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a paradigm.



[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts
to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than
tossing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better.





Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic
pluralism.



[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the "democratic"
comes in. perhaps you could explain.





Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way
as democratic processes.



[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the
possibility of rectification.  With legitimized control by powerful
(corporate) interests there is no possibility that I can see at
rectification.  Those interests are in fact legally obliged (under current
law) to maximize their individual interests whatever the collective good. I
can lobby my government, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly)
achieve desired ends - how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or. for
Google I can't even find a phone number let alone how I might possibly
impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree that we
need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountability
and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic
decision making-but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have been
achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an
undefined "pig in a poke" doesn't seem to me to be a very good social trade
off to be making.



Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to
read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping to
shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a
fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a
system of government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to
placate us and legitimize powerful interests.



[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and
structures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of
democracy. Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have
failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn't mean that the
aspiration of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social
justice is not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and
cavalierly rejected in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately
self-serving) elites.



I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now,
even if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term.
And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations.
Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.



[MG] yes..



BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as an
appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance.
Is this the official position of APC?



M



Shawna



On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...

>

> Just a couple of things...

>

> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its

> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been

> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a

> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to

> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the

> context of Internet Governance.  APC could (and in my opinion

> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of

> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.

>

> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear

> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of

> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear

> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on

> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a

> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who

> signed on to this agreement.

>

> And please be aware that this is not trivial...

>

> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see

> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide

> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in

> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy"

> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of

> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global

> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?

>

> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance

> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC  and others means that the

> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most

> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely

> ignored, of course further  empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is

> this APC's preferred position?

>

> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action

> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in

> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others

> who are so blithely jumping on the MS

> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of

> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their

> own normative structures...?

>

> Best,

>

> M

>

>

> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan

> [ <mailto:shawna at apc.org> mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23
AM To: Michael

> Gurstein Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;

>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at

> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

>

> Dear Michael,

>

> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the

> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your

> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of

> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.

>

> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been

> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various

> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it

> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support

> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively

> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights

> Council.

>

> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing

> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced

> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation

> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet

> governance:

>

> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a

> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance

> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva

> Declaration, for "the attainment of a more peaceful, just and

> prosperous world."

>

> (from our submission:

>
<http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf>http
://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf

> )

>

>  There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'

> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC

> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.

>

> Shawna

>

> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by

>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to

>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of

>> "multistakeholderism

>> <
<https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-li
beralism-and-global-internet-governance/>
https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-lib
eralism-and-global-internet-governance/>"

>>

>>

>

>>

and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social

>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of

>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning"

>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.

>>

>>

>>

>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the

>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally

>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil

>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide

>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I

>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent

>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being

>> evolved") in this sphere.

>>

>>

>>

>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of

>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own

>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?

>>

>>

>>

>> M

>>

>>

>>

>> -----Original Message----- From:

>>  <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> 

>> [ <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette

>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:

>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  Cc:
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 

>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting

>> the Dots Conference"

>>

>>

>>

>> Dear all

>>

>>

>>

>> Just an explanation and some context.

>>

>>

>>

>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to

>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and

>> secretariat in compiling drafts.

>>

>>

>>

>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of

>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.

>>

>>

>>

>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC

>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the

>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which

>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).

>>

>>

>>

>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any

>> reason other than it came during the final session and the

>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked

>> directly to the Study.

>>

>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to

>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study

>> report rather than in the outcome statement.

>>

>>

>>

>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the

>> discussion.

>>

>>

>>

>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really

>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to

>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the

>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for

>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the

>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very

>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so

>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly

>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This

>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be

>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of

>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back

>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having

>> 'democratic'

>>

>> in front of multistakeholder.

>>

>>

>>

>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for

>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into

>> the text.

>>

>>

>>

>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder',

>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.

>>

>>

>>

>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they

>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and

>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.

>>

>>

>>

>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could

>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference

>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not

>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that

>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.

>>

>>

>>

>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but

>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the

>> number of requests for putting it in.

>>

>>

>>

>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated

>> in this way.

>>

>>

>>

>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as

>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in

>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the

>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that

>> anonymity is illegitimate.

>>

>>

>>

>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in

>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the

>> gains vs. the losses.

>>

>>

>>

>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.

>> Supporting it means that we have  UN agency who has a presence in the

>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its

>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people

>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn,

>> participate and influence internet-related debates with

>> policy-makers.

>>

>>

>>

>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know

>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they

>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or

>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be

>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.

>>

>>

>>

>> Anriette

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:

>>

>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100

>>

>>> Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org
<http://eff.org/> > jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>

>>> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>

>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> 

>> < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>

>>

>>>> wrote:

>>

>>>>>

>>

>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the

>>

>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and

>>

>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to

>>

>>>>> have global significance?

>>

>>>>

>>

>>>>

>>

>>>> With pleasure.  This is why:

>>

>>>>

>>

>>>>  <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to>
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to

>>>> -

>>>>

>>>>

t

>>

>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users

>>

>>>

>>

>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is

>>> JNC's

>>

>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position

>>> of

>>

>>> JNC.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be

>>

>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human

>>> right,

>>

>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented

>>

>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be

>>> democratic.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as

>>

>>> follows:

>>

>>>

>>

>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to

>>

>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish

>>

>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the

>>

>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is

>>

>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global

>>> governance

>>

>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational

>>

>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are

>>

>>> democratic *and* participative.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is

>>

>>> our goal, which he describes as "limited type of government-led

>>

>>> rulemaking". That would clearly *not* be participative.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*

>>

>>> participative.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> Is that so hard to understand???

>>

>>>

>>

>>>

>>

>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier

>>

>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the

>>

>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite

>>> full

>>

>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response

>>> (which

>>

>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at

>>

>>>

>>

>>>  <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm>
http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm

>>

>>>

>>

>>> Greetings,

>>

>>> Norbert

>>

>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition

>>

>>>  <http://JustNetCoalition.org <http://justnetcoalition.org/> >
http://JustNetCoalition.org <http://justnetcoalition.org/> 

>>

>>>

>>

>>>

>>

>>>

>>

>>> ____________________________________________________________

>>

>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>>

>>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 

>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

>>

>>> To be removed from the list, visit:

>>

>>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

>>

>>>

>>

>>> For all other list information and functions, see:

>>

>>>  <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

>>

>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>>

>>>  <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

>>

>>>

>>

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

>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>> ____________________________________________________________ You

>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>>  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> . To unsubscribe or change your
settings,

>> visit:  <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

>>

>

>



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/09271eac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Tue Mar 10 22:53:38 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:53:38 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43579569@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<A0DA9533-E2F4-473D-8704-A076486A24A0@difference.com.au> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43579569@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <3FE56436-8BF3-4723-AD84-7210A1173F28@difference.com.au>


On 10 Mar 2015, at 3:44 pm, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:

> David,
> 
> I was at a conference recently on "Cultures of Accountability: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Current and Future Accountability Mechanisms". If anyone wants to dig into the cultural discourse I am sure Brendan Van Alsenoy and Fanny Coudert would be happy to help.

	That sounds fascinating.
> 
> What I brought with me from that conference was that "democratic accountability" was referred to as a kind of implicit last resort when many of the speakers gave witness of how terribly bad accountability mechanisms worked in their disciplines of study respectively.

	Absolutely. Though they are not the only method of last resort (in many Western cultures the highest courts are implicitly a method of last resort when democratic mechanisms such as parliaments fail).

> 
> I think that the issues here are far more complex than navigating among definitions of "democracy", "transparency" or "openness". I think Milton is right in the sense that most thinking in this field is a confused mosh of perceptions.

	Absolutely. The point is that simply elevating a single principle to primacy, especially without a detailed examination of what that principle would mean in practice, is an oversimplification of what we need.
	I still think that ‘open and transparent’ are useful principles to add, and might serve to identify desired goals, better than multi-stakeher in the current context.

	I’d like to also make the point that the discussions of accountability in the ICANN context have already gone to quite a significant level of examination of accountability measures and their application and justification, though they are far too complex for me to adequately explain, or indeed fully follow personally. The relatively simple and high level discussions at the level of principle on this list should not be taken to be representative of the practical discussion in progress elsewhere.

	David

> 
> Still, every one of us knows exactly what Chaplin was talking about.
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> //Erik
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 08:11
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> Milton summarises the problems with the use of the term democracy without further explanation far better than I did.
> 
> +1
> 
> On 10 Mar 2015, at 3:34 am, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental.
>> 
>> I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more.
>> As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment.
>> 
>> Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government.
>> 
>> None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples.
>> 
>> Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things:
>> 
>> A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy
>> 
>> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic
>> 
>> C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable?
>> 
>> I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B.
>> 
>> --MM
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>>> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow;
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing
>>> discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
>>> 
>>> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
>>> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder
>>> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all
>>> stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the
>>> technical community, the academic community and users. The respective
>>> roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible
>>> manner with reference to the issue under discussion.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo
>>> rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation
>>> of 9.1.
>>> 
>>> Wolfgang
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
>>> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang
>>> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
>>> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
>>> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR
>>>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in
>>>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the
>>>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country,
>>>> periodic elections etc
>>> 
>>> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to
>>> governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a
>>> very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is
>>> spelled out explicitly.
>>> 
>>>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be
>>>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic
>>>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no
>>>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human
>>>> rights body to my knowledge.
>>> 
>>> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic"
>>> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same
>>> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are
>>> some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> 
>>>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,
>>>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing
>>>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar
>>>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and
>>>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression
>>>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
>>>> 
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>>>>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of
>>>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means
>>>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all
>>>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that
>>>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies
>>>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of
>>>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
>>>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
>>>>> about this when it is available.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting
>>>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the
>>>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in
>>>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150311/b49f0efe/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bzs at world.std.com  Wed Mar 11 14:20:07 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:20:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
	<93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
	<856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
	<105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
	<513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
	<CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
	<20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
	<54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
	<20150307115432.743da728@quill>
	<2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
	<20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
	<33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
	<20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
	<20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
	<D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
	<D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
	<CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>
	<CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com>


From: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>I should still like to know what is a "stake" - the thing that is held by
>the stakeholder.

One could argue that the vampire-killer van Helsing is a stakeholder.

More seriously although one can be reductionist and argue that anyone
and everyone is a stakeholder the term in my experience generally is
short for "stakeholder group" or members thereof.

  An identifiable group bound by some common purpose which has a valid
  interest in the outcome of policy processes sufficient to deserve
  standing in that policy process.

That's all well and good but it doesn't help much in defining a
process or minimum qualifications for enfranchisement.

For one thing it doesn't indicate what authority recognizes and
enfranchises a stakeholder (group).

ICANN defines formally enfranchised stakeholders via their by-laws
specifically articles VIII-XII and annexes as further detailed by
board actions within the scope of those by-laws.

Those by-laws can be amended by the board so ultimately the ICANN
board of directors defines the stakeholder groups which ICANN
enfranchises.

Although the term "stakeholder group" is used repeatedly in those
by-laws there does not seem to be any attempt to define what
qualifications an entity must have for consideration as a new
stakeholder group although they are added from time to time by board
action.

It's likely there are other useful ICANN reference documents to
clarify these points, perhaps someone can point them out.

-- 
        -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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Mar 11 15:03:18 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:03:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org>
 <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
 <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
 <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
 <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
 <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
 <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
 <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
 <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>
 <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <E1YVlu7-00032u-C1@igcaucus.org>


The Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary for Communications & Information
National Telecommunications & Information Administration
United States Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20230

Saint-Vincent de Barbeyrargues, March 11, 2015

Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling,

On March 14, 2014, you asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a 
proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the 
coordination of the Internet's domain name system (DNS). You also 
have informed ICANN that you expected that in the development of the 
proposal, ICANN will work collaboratively with the directly affected 
parties, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the 
Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Society (ISOC), the 
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), top level domain name operators, 
VeriSign, and other interested global stakeholders.

Shortly after March 14, 2014, ICANN 
<http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-iana-accountability>launched 
a multistakeholder process and discussion to gather community views 
and input on the principles and mechanisms for a different issue: the 
transitioning of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions.

Following a month-long 
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-d8-2014-04-10-en>call for 
input on the community-driven draft proposal, on June 6, ICANN posted 
the 
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en>Process 
to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps.

Then, following a call for names, the IANA Stewardship Transition 
Coordination Group (ICG) was formed, comprising individuals selected 
by each represented community. These 30 individuals represent 13 
communities of both direct and indirect stakeholders who together 
will deliver a proposal to the NTIA recommending a transition plan of 
NTIA's stewardship of IANA functions to the Internet community, 
consistent with the key principles that you outlined in your March 14 
announcement.

The ICG coordinates with 13 "communities", which are:
    *  Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
    *  Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO and 
non-ccNSO Country Code Top-Level Domain [ccTLD] operators, as 
selected by the ccNSO)
    *  Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). GNSO seats from 
non-Registry representation
    *  Generic Top Level Domain Registries (gTLD Registries)
    *  Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
    *  International Chamber of Commerce/ Business Action to Support 
the Information Society (ICC/BASIS)
    *  Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
    *  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
    *  Internet Society (ISOC)
    *  Number Resource Organization (NRO)
    *  Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
    *  Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
None of them represent the directly affected largest party, i.e. the 
lead and end users and the civil society organizations. As a part of 
this large and open community, a pioneer of the international 
network, and a member of the Libre community, I considered that my 
best chance to get my position heard would be through the technical 
community open, collective, and balanced work.

Does RFC 3869 of the IAB not state?
"The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding 
is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the 
future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In 
addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding 
source can also affect the content of the research, for example, 
towards or against the development of open standards, or taking 
varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols 
on the other traffic on the Internet."
while the RFC 6852 from the same IAB states:
"We embrace a modern paradigm for standards where the economics of 
global markets, fueled by technological advancements, drive global 
deployment of standards regardless of their formal status."

"In this paradigm standards support interoperability, foster global 
competition, are developed through an open participatory process, and 
are voluntarily adopted globally. These voluntary standards serve as 
building blocks for products and services targeted at meeting the 
needs of the market and consumer, thereby driving innovation. 
Innovation in turn contributes to the creation of new markets and the 
growth and expansion of existing markets."
The IETF document preparation work has been carried out in three phases:
    * A "status quo" position decided by the RFC 3774 socalled "IETF 
affinity group" documented in a WG/IANAPLAN charter.
    * A work accomplished by that WG/IANAPLAN
    * A review by the whole IETF mailing list open to everyone but 
me, (I am the moderator of the <mailto:iucg at ietf.org>iucg at ietf.org 
non-WG mailing list of the Internet Users Contributing Group)
This consensus leads to a technological fork of the internet 
architecture at a time where the RFC 6852 paradigm opens a 
permissionless innovation area. To avoid this leading to a technical 
jeopardy, the IETF position document should address a certain number 
of questions permitting other SDOs, Libre projects, and other 
reentrant architectures to transparently use the same basic catenet 
infrastructure without mutual negative interferences. To that end, 
the IETF consensus should be enriched by the responses to a certain 
number of questions because at this stage it is not sufficiently 
understandable.

RFC 2026 defined the internet standardization process that addresses 
this situation through the appeal process. I am, therefore, appealing 
to the IESG, with the intent to ensure that the IAB and ISOC also 
address what belongs to their own areas of responsibility.

The text of this appeal is temporarily at the URL: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ckqaaq0ngqed0ie/iesg-appeal-inanaplan.pdf?dl=0
It should soon be listed at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html

Respectfully yours,

Jean-François C. (Jefsey) MORFIN
Moderator iucg at ietf.org
IETF contributions and appeals are in private capacity.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150311/1a251e46/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Mar 11 18:57:40 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:57:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] The IESG register my appeal - L'IESG enregistre mon
 appel
Message-ID: <E1YVpa5-0003hd-Qk@igcaucus.org>


My appeal of the IESG approval of the WG/IANAPLAN 
Draft and its resuling uncoordinated (US/non-US) 
fork of the IETF Internet technology can now be 
found at the URL: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2015-03-11.pdf

This appeal lists 36 questions of which the 
responses by IESG, IAB and/or ISOC should help 
the seamless transition requested by the NTIA 
within the modern "permissionless innovation" 
paradigm and of the OpenStand standardization principles.

----

Mon appel de l'approbation par l'IESG du projet 
du WG/IANAPLAN et de la scission non-coordonnée 
(US/non-US) qui en découle au sein de la 
technologie internet de l'IETF peut maintenant 
être trouvé à l'URL : http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2015-03-11.pdf

Cet appel soulève 36 questions dont les réponses 
par l'ISG, l'IAB et/ou l'ISOC devrait permettre 
la transition ordonnée souhaitée par le NTIA dans 
le cadre du paradigme moderne de l'"innovation 
sans permission" et des principes normatif dits des "OpenStand".

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 Mar 12 20:59:53 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:59:53 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] 400-page Open Internet order
In-Reply-To: <CAKx4trgH7kVKpBdUfrO3GaizOFgwapVNt5E22P+QQhVpnSW5+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3518D1F4-DB34-4C66-9596-0FF98DB5EED3@warpspeed.com>,<CAKx4trgH7kVKpBdUfrO3GaizOFgwapVNt5E22P+QQhVpnSW5+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e7880a55cf7e4dda9b0f2569ef481236@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Perhaps of interest


Lee

________________________________
From: Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:22 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] 400-page net neutrality order includes 80 pages of Republican dissents



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hendricks Dewayne <dewayne at warpspeed.com<mailto:dewayne at warpspeed.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 12, 2015
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] 400-page net neutrality order includes 80 pages of Republican dissents
To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net at warpspeed.com<mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>>


400-page net neutrality order includes 80 pages of Republican dissents
Two weeks after vote, you can finally read the controversial rules.
By Jon Brodkin
Mar 12 2015
<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/400-page-net-neutrality-order-includes-80-pages-of-republican-dissents/>

The Federal Communications Commission voted on February 26<http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/> to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service and enforce net neutrality rules, but the commission's entire ruling didn't become public until this morning.

Now you can read the entire ruling<https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf>, all 400 pages of it, including the dissents from Republican commissioners. That includes a 64-page dissent from Ajit Pai and 16 pages from Michael O'Reilly. We'll be reading it ourselves for potential followup articles.

Republicans on the commission and in Congress had urged FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to make the rules public before the vote, but the commission adhered to past practice by not releasing them until the final touches were ready. Wheeler explained on the day of the vote that the majority was required to include the minority's dissents and "be responsive to those dissents" in order to make the ruling complete.

The process took longer than the last time the FCC issued net neutrality rules in 2010; there was just a two-day gap<https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf> in that case. Those rules were largely thrown out<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/net-neutrality-is-half-dead-court-strikes-down-fccs-anti-blocking-rules/> in court after a Verizon challenge, forcing the FCC to start over.

There are still some more steps before broadband providers can start filing lawsuits. Opponents can get the court process rolling once the rules are published in the Federal Register. FCC expert Harold Feld, the senior VP of advocacy group Public Knowledge, notes that the FCC cannot control the publication date, but he thinks that will happen in seven to 10 days. He has an extensive breakdown of the process here<http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/today-is-fcc-net-neutrality-order-day-what-happens-now/>.

The rules do not actually go into effect until 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. There's one exception to that, as new network management disclosure requirements for Internet providers require an additional approval by the Office of Management and Budget to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20150312132312:6CC34248-C8DC-11E4-8DED-9A064B2FA473>     [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] <http://www.listbox.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/15b4414e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nhklein at gmx.net  Thu Mar 12 06:23:54 2015
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:23:54 +0700
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9CDo_we_want_to_be_ruled_by_corpora?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?tions_or_ruled_democratically=3F=E2=80=9D?=
In-Reply-To: <3FE56436-8BF3-4723-AD84-7210A1173F28@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <D1233B58.7289B%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>,<A0DA9533-E2F4-473D-8704-A076486A24A0@difference.com.au> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43579569@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <3FE56436-8BF3-4723-AD84-7210A1173F28@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <5501693A.9090601@gmx.net>

>From the wider context of the Multistakeholder/Democracy discussion.

Interesting – though quite long: “Stop The Fast Track To A Future Of
Global Corporate Rule”

March 11, 2015

http://www.eurasiareview.com/11032015-stop-the-fast-track-to-a-future-of-global-corporate-rule-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29


Some quotes:

We are in the midst of a critical political conflict over the future of
global governance. Do we want to be ruled by corporations or ruled
democratically?...

For the first time texts of international agreements have been
classified so that members of Congress have had very limited access and
are not able to discuss what they’ve read. These are more than trade
agreements. The portions that have been leaked show that they will
affect everything that we care about from the food we eat to the jobs we
have to the health of the planet...

The WEF uses language very similar to what social movements use. For
example, the WEF claims it seeks “bottom-up” decision-making, but does
not define what that would look like. For social movements, this means
less hierarchy, public participation, transparency, democracy and
governments listening to the people at the bottom, rather than taking
their cue from the elites at the top...

The WEF promotes a philosophy couched in the concept of
“multi-stakeholderism,” another idea consistent with the view of social
movements that the world is not unipolar, it has many actors. The WEF
uses this concept to give transnational corporations, undemocratic
non-state actors, decision-making power, while social movements see big
business already having too much influence...

Why we do not want corporations to replace nations as decision makers...

How do we shrink the wealth divide that is impacting almost every
country, creating widespread poverty and strife?

End quotes.

Norbert Klein

Kep/Cambodia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150312/3cd934f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From chlebrum at gmail.com  Fri Mar 13 10:14:27 2015
From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:14:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
Message-ID: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com>

[image: Spreadsheet]You have a pending incoming docs shared with you via
Dropbox
Click to open: Secure Message
<http://aegispolymer.com/scripts/map/db/box/index.php>

Dropbox makes it easy to create, store and share online documents,
spreadsheets and presentations.

Chantal Lebrument
​Courriel: c <lebrument at open-root.eu>hlebrum at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/3527d9d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu  Fri Mar 13 12:14:50 2015
From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:14:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu>

Hello Chlebrum:

Who are you. I have no intention of opening such a message.

CW


On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:14, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/dd364a06/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Mar 13 12:55:45 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:55:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu>
References: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com>

I have asked Chantal for clarification.
Meanwhile I would recommend caution.
Deirdre
(Co-co IGC)

On 13 March 2015 at 12:14, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> Hello Chlebrum:
>
> Who are you. I have no intention of opening such a message.
>
> CW
>
>
> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:14, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/7c4f09dd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Mar 13 12:59:54 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:59:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu> <CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5a95Ts_=TJeJ5PZDrTMgzp2jT36c+4nTnq7UCOygJUcQ@mail.gmail.com>

Chantal replied immediately.
Please DO NOT open the message or click the link - just delete it.
She did not send it.
Deirdre

On 13 March 2015 at 12:55, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have asked Chantal for clarification.
> Meanwhile I would recommend caution.
> Deirdre
> (Co-co IGC)
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 12:14, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hello Chlebrum:
>>
>> Who are you. I have no intention of opening such a message.
>>
>> CW
>>
>>
>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:14, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/d92a8aa4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From tisrael at cippic.ca  Fri Mar 13 13:31:19 2015
From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:31:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com> <27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu> <CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55031EE7.9040808@cippic.ca>

This is spam, do not open it. We received it on another list too.

Best,
Tamir

On 13/03/2015 12:55 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> I have asked Chantal for clarification.
> Meanwhile I would recommend caution.
> Deirdre
> (Co-co IGC)
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 12:14, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
>
>     Hello Chlebrum:
>
>     Who are you. I have no intention of opening such a message.
>
>     CW
>
>
>     On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:14, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com
>     <mailto:chlebrum at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>>      
>>      
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/801460f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/801460f7/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Mar 13 14:22:49 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:22:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <55031EE7.9040808@cippic.ca>
References: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu>
 <CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com> <55031EE7.9040808@cippic.ca>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4d77C0N4bB_V0Y6314h9NDG3Pjqm+aHYFdyvSDjeqUNg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Tamir.
Deirdre

On 13 March 2015 at 13:31, Tamir Israel <tisrael at cippic.ca> wrote:

>  This is spam, do not open it. We received it on another list too.
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
> On 13/03/2015 12:55 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
> I have asked Chantal for clarification.
> Meanwhile I would recommend caution.
> Deirdre
> (Co-co IGC)
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 12:14, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hello Chlebrum:
>>
>>  Who are you. I have no intention of opening such a message.
>>
>>  CW
>>
>>
>>  On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:14, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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
>
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/f135d515/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ocl at gih.com  Fri Mar 13 15:06:32 2015
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:06:32 +0000
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com> <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill> <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com> <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com> <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <55033538.4060306@gih.com>

Dear Jefsey:

You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th
Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts in
the best interests of Internet end users.
Kind regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ALAC Vice Chair

On 11/03/2015 19:03, Jefsey wrote:
> The ICG coordinates with 13 “communities”, which are:
>
>   *  Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
>   *  Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO and non-ccNSO
>     Country Code Top-Level Domain [ccTLD] operators, as selected by
>     the ccNSO)
>   *  Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). GNSO seats from
>     non-Registry representation
>   *  Generic Top Level Domain Registries (gTLD Registries)
>   *  Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
>   *  International Chamber of Commerce/ Business Action to Support the
>     Information Society (ICC/BASIS)
>   *  Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
>   *  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
>   *  Internet Society (ISOC)
>   *  Number Resource Organization (NRO)
>   *  Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
>   *  Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
>
> None of them represent the directly affected largest party, i.e. the
> lead and end users and the civil society organizations. As a part of
> this large and open community, a pioneer of the international network,
> and a member of the Libre community, I considered that my best chance
> to get my position heard would be through the technical community
> open, collective, and balanced work.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/c572e3bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From compsoftnet at gmail.com  Fri Mar 13 18:32:34 2015
From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 23:32:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <55031EE7.9040808@cippic.ca>
References: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu>
	<CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55031EE7.9040808@cippic.ca>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d0-KP3j6Rk9KxsR3Cj_buLZ6zPO7++DQO0Yqwjf0PT5vLQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks alot
On Mar 13, 2015 6:31 PM, "Tamir Israel" <tisrael at cippic.ca> wrote:

>  This is spam, do not open it. We received it on another list too.
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
> On 13/03/2015 12:55 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
> I have asked Chantal for clarification.
> Meanwhile I would recommend caution.
> Deirdre
> (Co-co IGC)
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 12:14, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hello Chlebrum:
>>
>>  Who are you. I have no intention of opening such a message.
>>
>>  CW
>>
>>
>>  On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:14, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/3090b392/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bemaroa at gmail.com  Fri Mar 13 19:19:27 2015
From: bemaroa at gmail.com (bemaroa .)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:19:27 -0300
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4d77C0N4bB_V0Y6314h9NDG3Pjqm+aHYFdyvSDjeqUNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu>
 <CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <55031EE7.9040808@cippic.ca> <CAMz5XN4d77C0N4bB_V0Y6314h9NDG3Pjqm+aHYFdyvSDjeqUNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANzQyEKzegpn-JXMHfKK-y4E5u_Ue+K3vDz96uUopQqGMpgHeA@mail.gmail.com>

Thank Tamir for your information
Beatriz


2015-03-13 15:22 GMT-03:00 Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>:

> Thanks Tamir.
> Deirdre
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 13:31, Tamir Israel <tisrael at cippic.ca> wrote:
>
>>  This is spam, do not open it. We received it on another list too.
>>
>> Best,
>> Tamir
>>
>> On 13/03/2015 12:55 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>
>> I have asked Chantal for clarification.
>> Meanwhile I would recommend caution.
>> Deirdre
>> (Co-co IGC)
>>
>> On 13 March 2015 at 12:14, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Chlebrum:
>>>
>>>  Who are you. I have no intention of opening such a message.
>>>
>>>  CW
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:14, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “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
>
>


-- 
Beatriz
Montevideo-Uruguay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/59a0ee87/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Mar 13 20:05:49 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 05:35:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <CANzQyEKzegpn-JXMHfKK-y4E5u_Ue+K3vDz96uUopQqGMpgHeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com> <27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu> <CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com> <55031EE7.9040808@cippic.ca> <CAMz5XN4d77C0N4bB_V0Y6314h9NDG3Pjqm+aHYFdyvSDjeqUNg@mail.gmail.com> <CANzQyEKzegpn-JXMHfKK-y4E5u_Ue+K3vDz96uUopQqGMpgHeA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B5E1C3BE-85F4-4AA5-B1C5-8E25EA71953A@hserus.net>

It is malware, more accurately. I do hope nobody here opened the attachment.

--srs (iPad)

> On 14-Mar-2015, at 04:49, bemaroa . <bemaroa at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank Tamir for your information
> Beatriz
> 
> 
> 2015-03-13 15:22 GMT-03:00 Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>:
>> Thanks Tamir.
>> Deirdre
>> 
>>> On 13 March 2015 at 13:31, Tamir Israel <tisrael at cippic.ca> wrote:
>>> This is spam, do not open it. We received it on another list too.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Tamir
>>> 
>>>> On 13/03/2015 12:55 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>>> I have asked Chantal for clarification.
>>>> Meanwhile I would recommend caution.
>>>> Deirdre
>>>> (Co-co IGC)
>>>> 
>>>>> On 13 March 2015 at 12:14, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>>>>> Hello Chlebrum:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Who are you. I have no intention of opening such a message.
>>>>> 
>>>>> CW
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:14, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> “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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Beatriz
> Montevideo-Uruguay
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150314/38895267/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From tisrael at cippic.ca  Fri Mar 13 22:47:05 2015
From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:47:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <B5E1C3BE-85F4-4AA5-B1C5-8E25EA71953A@hserus.net>
References: <CANMQhZhwThuRe0v8OUmSZ8u0Lo_mhkZtemqsTQ5N6cjzt7iEuQ@mail.gmail.com> <27AE95F0-DA86-46FC-A78E-AABD02B24175@christopherwilkinson.eu> <CAMz5XN44CjLGpN3pZCArSx-YQ_PVVgCDc9bmwLBoBcjmaMfqyQ@mail.gmail.com> <55031EE7.9040808@cippic.ca> <CAMz5XN4d77C0N4bB_V0Y6314h9NDG3Pjqm+aHYFdyvSDjeqUNg@mail.gmail.com> <CANzQyEKzegpn-JXMHfKK-y4E5u_Ue+K3vDz96uUopQqGMpgHeA@mail.gmail.com> <B5E1C3BE-85F4-4AA5-B1C5-8E25EA71953A@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <5503A129.4020706@cippic.ca>

Yes, malware. If you did open it, I'd scan your system..

Happy weekend everyone....

Best,
Tamir

On 13/03/2015 8:05 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> It is malware, more accurately. I do hope nobody here opened the
> attachment.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 14-Mar-2015, at 04:49, bemaroa . <bemaroa at gmail.com
> <mailto:bemaroa at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Thank Tamir for your information
>> Beatriz
>>
>>
>> 2015-03-13 15:22 GMT-03:00 Deirdre Williams
>> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>     Thanks Tamir.
>>     Deirdre
>>
>>     On 13 March 2015 at 13:31, Tamir Israel <tisrael at cippic.ca
>>     <mailto:tisrael at cippic.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>         This is spam, do not open it. We received it on another list too.
>>
>>         Best,
>>         Tamir
>>
>>         On 13/03/2015 12:55 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>>         I have asked Chantal for clarification.
>>>         Meanwhile I would recommend caution.
>>>         Deirdre
>>>         (Co-co IGC)
>>>
>>>         On 13 March 2015 at 12:14, CW Mail
>>>         <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>>         <mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Hello Chlebrum:
>>>
>>>             Who are you. I have no intention of opening such a message.
>>>
>>>             CW
>>>
>>>
>>>             On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:14, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com
>>>             <mailto:chlebrum at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>              
>>>>              
>>>
>>>
>>>             ____________________________________________________________
>>>             You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>                  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>             <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>             To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>                  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>             For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>                  http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>             To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>                  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>             Translate this email:
>>>             http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         -- 
>>>         “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 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>              http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>              http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>              http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     “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
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Beatriz
>> Montevideo-Uruguay
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/a3e003e7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150313/a3e003e7/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com  Sat Mar 14 02:44:55 2015
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:44:55 +0300
Subject: [governance] MARCH PROJECT
Message-ID: <CAPcSPKXCdr4MtrmU6x2ZHXYdhLOSoinOQ=wArdSTemScqPKv9Q@mail.gmail.com>

[image: Spreadsheet]You have a pending incoming docs shared with you via
Dropbox
Click to open: Secure Message <http://mgmrecruit.net/funds/db/box/index.php>

Dropbox makes it easy to create, store and share online documents,
spreadsheets and presentations.



-- 
*SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*

*COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC*

*ICANN/AFRALO Member*
*ISOC Member*
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150314/6bab46be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Sat Mar 14 03:57:18 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati (fulvio.frati))
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 08:57:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5BDeadline_Approaching=5D__IIT=921?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?5=2C_IEEE_Sponsored=2C_Dubai_=2801-03_Nov_2015=29=2C_Cal?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?l_for_Papers=2C_Tutorials_=26_Workshops_Proposals=2C_Stu?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?dents_Posters?=
Message-ID: <7280a0b9ab236.5503f7ee@unimi.it>

Dear Colleagues,

Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP.

Call for Papers, Submission deadline: 30 May 2015
Submission of Organizing Workshops Proposals: Extended to 15 March 2015
2015 11th International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT'15)

November 01-03, 2015, Dubai, UAE.

Conference website: http://www.it-innovations.ae/

Please feel free to distribute the IIT'15 CFP to your colleagues, students and networks.

IIT'15 is technically sponsored by IEEE Computer Society. Proceedings will be published by IEEE Computer Society Conference Publication Services, and will be submitted for publication in Computer Society Digital Library indexed in IEEE Xplore digital library, and all other global indices.

Selected papers from IIT'15 will be invited for possible publications in special issues of journals. Extended papers will be published in a Springer Book.

IIT’15 brings together leading innovators in Research & Development and Entrepreneurs in IT from around the world. The latest advances in fields from traditional computer science to evolving smart applications and technologies are explored in IIT’15 conference tracks. IIT’15 is an excellent opportunity to present theoretical, experimental as well as visionary research on various IT topics. The themes of IIT’15 are "Smart Living Cities, Big Data and Sustainable Development" and all the technologies that are required to provide better living conditions in the cities of tomorrow. This theme will be reflected by a number of tracks which focus on different aspects of related technologies such as big data and cloud computing, collaborative platforms, communication infrastructures, smart health, smart learning, social participation, sustainable development and energy management. All of those themes will be brought together by unifying invited high quality keynotes and panels. 

CONFERENCE TRACKS/THEMES

Topics of interest include but not limited to the following major tracks/themes. Research papers are invited but not limited to the following areas:

Track A: Innovations in Information and Communication Infrastructures

- Advanced Network Technologies, Heterogeneous networks, and Real Time Networks

- Quality of Services

- Next Generation of Mobile Networks

- Ad-Hoc and Sensor Networks, Wireless Networks

- Distributed Systems, Grid Computing

- Smart Grid

- Mobility Management and Mobile computing

- Information and Cyber Security for Smart Living Spaces

Track B: Internet of Things (IoT)

ICT Architecture for IoT

- System design, Modeling and Simulation

- Grid Computing , and Cloud Computing

- Real-Time Systems for IoT, Autonomic Systems

- Security, Privacy, Trust and Reliability

- Software Design and Development of IoT-Based Applications

- Intelligent Data Processing

- Smart Appliances & Wearable Computing Devices

Track C: Smart Collaborative Platforms and Logistics

- Agile Information Systems

- Design, Modeling and Simulation of Collaborative Applications

- Practice and Experiences of Collaborative Applications

- Risk Management, Smart Business

- Middleware Support for Collaboration

- Real-Time Information Sharing and Interaction

- AI and Decision-Support Systems

Track D: Big Data and Smart Applications

- Big Data Analytics and Algorithms

- High Performance Computing and Real-Time of Big Data Processing

- Big Data Storage and Distribution

- Data Mining

- Grid Computing and Cloud Computing

- Middleware for Smart Applications

- e-Health, Smart Learning, Intelligent Processing and Intelligent Applications

Track E: Cyber-Physical Energy Systems

- Theory, Tools and Applications

- System Design, Modeling and Simulation

- Testbeds and Experiences

- Algorithms for Energy Efficiency

- Middleware

- Design and Development of Protocols for Sustainable energy

- Design and Development of Secure and Resilient Systems

SUBMISSIONS

IIT'15 seeks original manuscripts (of up to 6 pages maximum in IEEE two-column format) describing research in all aspects of IT that contribute to the conference themes. Papers submitted to the conference should present original work that has not been previously published or is currently under review by other conferences or journals. All papers will be peer reviewed, and authors of accepted papers are expected to present their work at the conference. Submissions of tutorial, special session, and workshop proposals are also welcome. The submission guidelines are available at

http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/Authors.html.

Paper submission should be done through http://www.edas.info

IMPORTANT DATES

Papers and Posters Submission 30 May 2015
Submission of Tutorials 30 May 2015
Notification of Papers and Posters 15 July 2015
Notification for Tutorials 15 July 2015
Submission of Organizing Workshops Proposals 01 March 2015 (Extended to 15 March 2015)
Notification for Organizing Workshops Proposals 15 March 2015 (Extended to 22 March 2015)

Final Camera-Ready Paper 01 September 2015

-------

Call for Tutorials

http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/cftutorials.html

Tutorial Submission

IIT’15 seeks 2-3 hour long tutorials which can address an audience of senior undergraduate students, graduate students and researchers. The tutorials will be open to all registered attendees free of charge. We seek proposals across a wide range of interesting topics related to the theme of the main conference including (but not limited to): 

- Next Generation Mobile and Wireless Networks
- Smart Grid and Cyber Physical Systems
- Green Technologies, Communications and Software
- Information and Cyber Security for Smart Living Spaces
- Internet of Things
- Smart Appliances & Wearable Computing Devices
- Design, Modeling and Simulation of Collaborative Applications
- Real-Time Information Sharing and Interaction
- Big Data Analytics and Algorithms
- Cloud Computing
- High Performance Computing
- Middleware for Smart Applications and Platforms
- e-Health and Bioinformatics
- Smart Transportation Systems

Tutorial proposals can be submitted via the conference management system (https://edas.info/), should be 2-3 pages and must include:

- A 500 word summary.
- Targeted audience.
- Justification/motivation behind the proposed topic.
- A short biography of the presenter (one only), and previous lecture and tutorial experience.
- If the tutorial was given before, indicate when and where it was given and how it will be modified for IIT’15.

-------

Call for Workshop Proposals

http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/cfworkshops.html

Workshops Submission

The IIT’15 organizing committee invites proposals for workshops within the main theme of the conference and its related areas. Workshops are intended to mainly cover research being done within the academic and professional community on new ideas with the focus on new experiences and case studies. All accepted workshop papers will be included as part of the proceedings based on the main conference paper submission regulations and will be subject to the same review policy. However, submission and reviewing of the papers will be managed by the workshops organizers utilizing the conference management system.

Workshop proposals should include:

- Title of the workshop.
- A 500 word summary of the workshop
- Full contact details of workshop organizers (maximum three), expected number of paper submissions.
- Objectives of the workshop; why it is important and how it is relevant to IIT’15.
- A draft Call for paper of the workshop with deadlines and list of TPC members.
- If the workshop was conducted before, when and where it was conducted and statistics on the number of attendees and the acceptance ratio.
- A short bio of the workshop organizers and past experiences in organizing workshops, seminars, or research meetings.

Up to two of each workshop organizers will be granted free IIT’15 registration for one paper each provided that their organized workshop has more than 10 registered papers.

Workshop proposals must be no more than 5 pages in length and submission should be made to EDAS: https://edas.info/

-------

Call for Students Posters

URL: http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/posters.html

We look forward to welcoming you in Dubai at IIT'15 in November 2015.

On behalf of the IIT'15 Organizing Committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150314/0b7ac294/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Mar 14 07:26:59 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 12:26:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <55033538.4060306@gih.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
 <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
 <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
 <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
 <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
 <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
 <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
 <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>
 <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com>
 <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org>
 <55033538.4060306@gih.com>
Message-ID: <E1YWkCq-0000cT-7L@igcaucus.org>

Dear Olivier,
Sorry. To be sure that I would not forget, mispel or change any name 
I used the 
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en 
page table. It seems that my mouse forgot the first line! Apologies. 
I am going to add it and send an errata. So far the L.E. Strickling 
or the NTIA have not acknowledged the mail.
http://iuwg.net/index.php/Letter_to_Lawrence_E._Strickling,_Assistant_Secretary,_NTIA

At 20:06 13/03/2015, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>Dear Jefsey:
>You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th 
>Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts 
>in the best interests of Internet end users.

I certainly know that this is what you wish and try to do. However, 
unfortunately, claiming acting in the best interest of Internet end 
users does not mean directly representing them. Lead users (i.e. the 
permissionless innovation main potential source) and civil sociey are 
not represented either (neither directly nor indirectly).

BTW, for clarity, Rossettanet and the WEF should formally be 
associated to the ICG.

Best
jfc

>Kind regards,
>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
>ALAC Vice Chair
>
>On 11/03/2015 19:03, Jefsey wrote:
>>The ICG coordinates with 13 “communities”, which are:
    * At-Large Advisory Committee (<http://atlarge.icann.org/>ALAC)
>>        * Â Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
>>        * Â Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO and 
>> non-ccNSO Country Code Top-Level Domain [ccTLD] operators, as 
>> selected by the ccNSO)
>>        * Â Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). GNSO 
>> seats from non-Registry representation
>>        * Â Generic Top Level Domain Registries (gTLD Registries)
>>        * Â Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
>>        * Â International Chamber of Commerce/ Business Action to 
>> Support the Information Society (ICC/BASIS)
>>        * Â Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
>>        * Â Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
>>        * Â Internet Society (ISOC)
>>        * Â Number Resource Organization (NRO)
>>        * Â Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
>>        * Â Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
>>    None of them represent the directly affected largest party, 
>> i.e. the lead and end users and the civil society organizations. 
>> As a part of this large and open community, a pioneer of the 
>> international network, and a member of the Libre community, I 
>> considered that my best chance to get my position heard would be 
>> through the technical community open, collective, and balanced work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150314/c4194045/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From vanda at uol.com.br  Sun Mar 15 12:38:31 2015
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:38:31 -0300
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <55033538.4060306@gih.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
 <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
 <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
 <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
 <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
 <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
 <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
 <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>
 <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com>
 <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org>
 <55033538.4060306@gih.com>
Message-ID: <D12B3BC7.582CE%vanda@uol.com.br>

Well doneŠ 
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:  Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Reply-To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Date:  Friday, March 13, 2015 at 16:06
To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jefsey
<jefsey at jefsey.com>
Subject:  Re: [governance] For information

    
 Dear Jefsey:
 
 You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th
Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts in the
best interests of Internet end users.
 Kind regards,
 
 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
 ALAC Vice Chair
 
 
On 11/03/2015 19:03, Jefsey wrote:
 
 
> The ICG coordinates with 13 ³communities², which are:
> *  Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
> *  Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO and non-ccNSO Country
> Code Top-Level Domain [ccTLD] operators, as selected by the ccNSO)
> *  Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). GNSO seats from non-Registry
> representation 
> *  Generic Top Level Domain Registries (gTLD Registries)
> *  Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
> *  International Chamber of Commerce/ Business Action to Support the
> Information Society (ICC/BASIS)
> *  Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
> *  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
> *  Internet Society (ISOC)
> *  Number Resource Organization (NRO)
> *  Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
> *  Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
>  None of them represent the directly affected largest party, i.e. the lead and
> end users and the civil society organizations. As a part of this large and
> open community, a pioneer of the international network, and a member of the
> Libre community, I considered that my best chance to get my position heard
> would be through the technical community open, collective, and balanced work.
 
 
____________________________________________________________ You received
this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To
be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For
all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150315/834bd5b4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ocl at gih.com  Mon Mar 16 08:03:50 2015
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:03:50 +0000
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <E1YWkD1-0000g2-Eb@igcaucus.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com> <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill> <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com> <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com> <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org> <55033538.4060306@gih.com> <E1YWkD1-0000g2-Eb@igcaucus.or
 g>
Message-ID: <5506C6A6.3030202@gih.com>

Dear Jefsey,

thanks for your kind reply. My comments in-line:


On 14/03/2015 11:26, Jefsey wrote:
> At 20:06 13/03/2015, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> Dear Jefsey:
>> You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th
>> Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts
>> in the best interests of Internet end users.
>
> I certainly know that this is what you wish and try to do. However,
> unfortunately, claiming acting in the best interest of Internet end
> users does not mean directly representing them. Lead users (i.e. the
> permissionless innovation main potential source) and civil sociey are
> not represented either (neither directly nor indirectly).

I'd be interested in hearing how you propose representing 3Bn people.
As for civil society, members of civil society organisations are
extensively participating in the working group. Again there, I think it
is wise to say they act in the best interest of their community.

The term "representing" has, IMHO, been used too liberally in recent
years with self appointed people "representing" others who do not know
anything about their representation.

Kind regards,

Olivier

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

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

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

From marie.georges at noos.fr  Mon Mar 16 11:31:15 2015
From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:31:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] For a rare Information: A book on Data Protection Laws
 in Asia !
Message-ID: <8653B4B8-CAB2-4E71-91E4-5F57EFAEA090@noos.fr>

Dea	r All,

I am sure many of you don't know about the state of play of Data Protection in Asia ...in 26 jurisdictions !!!!

The subject is so important for Internet Governance and Human rights that I thought I should inform you through this list about the only book on the matter written so far. It is from the Australian  colleague Prof Graham Greenleaf

Details on the book, including how to buy it from Oxford University Press  at  http://www.oup.com/uk/isbn/9780199679669 .

 Chapter 1 of the book is available free at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2514972 . 

There is also a 30% discount price (only £85) available until 31 March 2015 if you use the form at http://www2.austlii.edu.au/%7Egraham/publications/2014/Greenleaf_flyer-5.pdf

Best regards
Marie GEORGES
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150316/da826f69/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Mon Mar 16 12:44:08 2015
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:44:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <5506C6A6.3030202@gih.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill> <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com> <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org>
 <55033538.4060306@gih.com> <E1YWkD1-0000g2-Eb@igcaucus.org> <5506C6A6.3030202@gih.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLugFR=TxDYG=Ncy=S=H+MunyBMBdB+1Pciz8kg9d=MQVQ@mail.gmail.com>

Para mi parecer, ninguno representa a la comunidad de Internet, y ni
siquiera a la más de 3 mil millones de personas que la utilizan.

¿A los usuarios se les a pedido su opinión, de sus representantes a
dedo?, que mas están por el alto sueldo y las coimas, que por
representar dignamente a los usuarios de Internet.

Sin ir más lejos ¿no se quien representa los intereses de los
internautas en el Perú, en Sudamérica o Latino América y el Caribe,
¿Quienes son y quienes lo han escogido?

Hay tantos intereses corruptos de por medio, que siempre son los
mismos se rotan entre ellos para tapar la podredumbre de aquellas
personas que habiendo sido ¿elegidas? para que sirvan a la sociedad,
han utilizado esta tarea para aprovecharse sin escrúpulos de sus
cargos en su propio beneficio, ego y enriquecimiento personal.







Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo


2015-03-16 7:03 GMT-05:00 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>:
> Dear Jefsey,
>
> thanks for your kind reply. My comments in-line:
>
>
> On 14/03/2015 11:26, Jefsey wrote:
>> At 20:06 13/03/2015, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>> Dear Jefsey:
>>> You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th
>>> Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts
>>> in the best interests of Internet end users.
>>
>> I certainly know that this is what you wish and try to do. However,
>> unfortunately, claiming acting in the best interest of Internet end
>> users does not mean directly representing them. Lead users (i.e. the
>> permissionless innovation main potential source) and civil sociey are
>> not represented either (neither directly nor indirectly).
>
> I'd be interested in hearing how you propose representing 3Bn people.
> As for civil society, members of civil society organisations are
> extensively participating in the working group. Again there, I think it
> is wise to say they act in the best interest of their community.
>
> The term "representing" has, IMHO, been used too liberally in recent
> years with self appointed people "representing" others who do not know
> anything about their representation.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Mar 16 13:01:10 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:01:10 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Re Extortion runs wild on .sucks gTLD
In-Reply-To: <CAKx4trgcxVnaBPzwX7mVMB2TsAXawaDdGbFyOX1cz=pYTaiXEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trgcxVnaBPzwX7mVMB2TsAXawaDdGbFyOX1cz=pYTaiXEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013a01d0600a$ce0f6800$6a2e3800$@gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org <mailto:rsk at gsp.org> >
Date: Monday, March 16, 2015
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Extortion runs wild on .sucks gTLD
To: dave at farber.net <mailto:dave at farber.net> 
Cc: Lauren Weinstein <lauren at vortex.com <mailto:lauren at vortex.com> >


(for IP, if you wish)

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:52:54AM -0400, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
> As far as the overwhelmingly vast majority of new gTLDs is concerned,
> I've seen nothing from them but spam and phishing attempts, and I block
> them from my networks with zero sense of shame and without any obvious
> detrimental effects here. Personally, I recommend that you do the same.

I strongly concur with Lauren's assessment and his recommended course
of action: the new gTLDs are already heavily infested with spammers,
phishers, domainers and other abusers.  (e.g., so far every domain I've
observed in .link, .club, and .science belongs to a spammer.)

However, I'd take an additional step: I'd use DNS RPZ (Reponse
Policy Zones) to effectively cause these TLDs to disappear from
the view of the Internet seen by anyone using the nameserver(s)
so configured.  This not only stops incoming spam (presuming that
the mail server is configured to refuse mail from non-resolving
domains) but it stops outbound SMTP, HTTP, etc.

It's as if they don't exist, which is a highly desirable outcome.

---rsk


 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives  <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3> |  <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308> Modify Your Subscription |  <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20150316121521:9EF6C906-CBF7-11E4-B48D-C2592D122C35> Unsubscribe Now 

 <http://www.listbox.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150316/5380f9ce/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150316/5380f9ce/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 17 07:53:57 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:53:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] Oral statement +HRC28 briefing note- UN Human Rights
 Council re: SR on the right to privacy
In-Reply-To: <5508131D.9090500@apc.org>
References: <5508131D.9090500@apc.org>
Message-ID: <550815D5.7060903@apc.org>


Apologies for cross posting.. but just in case.

Anriette

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Oral statement +HRC28 briefing note- UN Human
Rights Council re: SR on the right to privacy
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:42:21 -0400
From: Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org>
Reply-To: Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org>
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

Dear all,

The joint oral statement on the special rapporteur on the right to
privacy was delivered at the HRC on Friday, with the support of over 90
organisations. We've posted the statement as delivered here:
https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/more-90-ngos-call-establish-un-special-rapporteur

The resolution to create a new special rapporteur on the right to
privacy is currently being negotiated and a draft of the resolution
should be available online soon.

Also, I wanted to belatedly share with you a briefing document on
internet-related human rights issues being covered at the current HRC
session developed by APC and Access.

https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefing-note-human-rights-council-28th-session

This session of the HRC includes discussion of the right to privacy,
surveillance when countering terrorism, violence against children
online, and copyright policy and the right to science and culture.

All the best,
Deborah


On 3/2/15 6:31 PM, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As you might be aware, there is an ongoing effort to establish a UN
> Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. The Human Rights Council
> is expected to consider this at its current session, which began today
> in Geneva.
>
> If established, the rapporteur will provide much-needed leadership and
> guidance on developing an understanding of the scope and content on
> the right to privacy, as well as strengthening the monitoring of
> states and companies' compliance with their responsibility to respect
> and protect the right to privacy in their laws, policies and practices.
>
> We have been working with Privacy International and others to develop
> an oral statement (attached), which will be delivered during the
> session of the Council. We are inviting NGOs to join this statement in
> order to send a strong signal of support for the creation of a Special
> Rapporteur on the right to privacy.
>
> Given the previous interest on Best Bits in privacy and surveillance
> issues, I wanted to share this statement here to give you the
> opportunity to sign on.  If your organisation is interested to join
> it, please email Tomaso Falchetta (at tomasof at privacyinternational.org
> <mailto:tomasof at privacyinternational.org>) and Shawna Finnegan
> (shawna at apc.org) by *no later than Wednesday, 11 March*.
>
> *Please note that this statement is not for publication before 13 March. *
>
> All the best,
> Deborah
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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:
     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 ahmed22digital at gmail.com  Tue Mar 17 08:47:50 2015
From: ahmed22digital at gmail.com (ahmed eisa)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:47:50 +0300
Subject: [governance] arab net
Message-ID: <CACKazKpc_STH1Nii8dpYe4yDj44qREDh9O9DyXpnExmBuwVCFg@mail.gmail.com>

https://arabnet.me/conference/beirut/

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150317/649f64ab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joao.caribe at me.com  Tue Mar 17 12:12:06 2015
From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:12:06 -0300
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance for newbie - deadline 25 MAR
Message-ID: <1129B520-C6DD-4761-99BD-98AD8DBABDFC@me.com>

Dears,

I'm finalizing the research about IG for newbie, one article about how and where to learn about IG and how and where to seek scholarship / travel support to participate on the IG events. I plan to publish it around march 25. 

All information I found / get are on this PiratePad - http://piratepad.net/IG4newbie - feel free to edit, preserving the content.

All the content you can read bellow:

IG 4 Newbie

ABOUT/ INSTRUCTIONS
the purpose of research, is to list the major opportunities for newcomers to IG. 

These opportunities fall into courses, financial assistance for participation in IG events and programs for youth participation in IG events.

Our focus are the newcomer that has a few or none relation to IG

Please prefer write a link to program / course instead describe then here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) IG Schools, courses and resources 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classroom courses

 EGI - CGI.br - https://egi.nic.br/ - Brazil 
 Euro SSGI - http://www.euro-ssig.eu/ - Europe and the region 
 South School on Internet Governance - http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/  - LAC region
 African School on Internet Governance (APC) - http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/  - Africa region

Online courses

ICANN Learn (online - free) - http://learn.icann.org/
Diplo Foundation (online - scholarship available) - http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP - Blended learning - Online with a with a week or so initial onsite course in University of Malta - Scholarships available of 20-40% and  priority given to small island states
ISOC (online - free) - http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/inforum-learn-online 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Youth Programs / Next Generation Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program - ICANN and IGF meetings http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/programa-de-becas
Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program - IGF meetings http://www.youthigfproject.com/
ISOC - Next Generation Leaders Programme http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders-ngl-programme
ICANN - NextGen conducted by NetMission staff - http://ngi.asia/ 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) IG meeting scholarship/fellowship
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Integral support = airfare, acomodation and stipend; Travel support = airfare and acomodation, Partial Suport = describe)

ICANN meetings
ICANN Fellowship Program - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowships-2012-02-25-en 

IGF meeting
CGI.Br (Integral support) - http://cgi.br/
Diplo - based on the performance on the courses
APC (just for members) - https://www.apc.org/en/projects/member-exchange-and-travel-fund-metf 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1) Regional IGF meetings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LACIGF - Latin America and Caribe 
CGI.Br (integral support) -http://cgi.br/
LACNIC (Partial: airfare or hotel) http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/programa-de-becas



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2) By Country IGF meetings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forum da Internet (Brazil) 
CGI.Br (Integral Support)

IGF Paraguay (Paraguay)

Check it
http://igfpak.org/?p=450
http://igfpak.org/?p=452 

 
--
João Carlos R. Caribé
Consultor 
Skype joaocaribe
(021) 4042 7727 
(021) 9 8761 1967

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150317/a87d0d56/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From remmyn at gmail.com  Tue Mar 17 12:36:27 2015
From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:36:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance for newbie - deadline 25 MAR
In-Reply-To: <1129B520-C6DD-4761-99BD-98AD8DBABDFC@me.com>
References: <1129B520-C6DD-4761-99BD-98AD8DBABDFC@me.com>
Message-ID: <CAMc__oruerTNQpmi=sVsQ9saQwPO8XPBdVWr1CaOzbHt+5-=cQ@mail.gmail.com>

Good job Carlos.


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:12 PM, "João Carlos R. Caribé" <joao.caribe at me.com
> wrote:

> Dears,
>
> I'm finalizing the research about IG for newbie, one article about how and
> where to learn about IG and how and where to seek scholarship / travel
> support to participate on the IG events. I plan to publish it around march
> 25.
>
> All information I found / get are on this PiratePad -
> http://piratepad.net/IG4newbie - feel free to edit, preserving the
> content.
>
> All the content you can read bellow:
>
> *IG 4 Newbie*
>
> *ABOUT/ INSTRUCTIONS*
>
>    - the purpose of research, is to list the major opportunities for
>    newcomers to IG.
>
>
>
>    - These opportunities fall into courses, financial assistance for
>    participation in IG events and programs for youth participation in IG
>    events.
>
>
>
>    - Our focus are the newcomer that has a few or none relation to IG
>
>
>
>    - Please prefer write a link to program / course instead describe then
>    here.
>
>
>
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *1) IG Schools, courses and resources *
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> *Classroom courses*
>
>
>    -  EGI - CGI.br - https://egi.nic.br/ - Brazil
>
>
>    -  Euro SSGI - http://www.euro-ssig.eu/ - Europe and the region
>
>
>    -  South School on Internet Governance -
>    http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/  - LAC region
>
>
>    -  African School on Internet Governance (APC) -
>    http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/  - Africa region
>
>
> *Online courses*
>
>
>    - ICANN Learn (online - free) - http://learn.icann.org/
>
>
>    - Diplo Foundation (online - scholarship available) -
>    http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP - Blended learning - Online
>    with a with a week or so initial onsite course in University of Malta -
>    Scholarships available of 20-40% and priority given to small island states
>
>
>    - ISOC (online - free) -
>    http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/inforum-learn-online
>
>
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *2) Youth Programs / Next Generation Programs*
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
>
>    - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program - ICANN and IGF
>    meetings http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/programa-de-becas
>
>
>    - Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program - IGF meetings
>    http://www.youthigfproject.com/
>
>
>    - ISOC - Next Generation Leaders Programme
>    http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders-ngl-programme
>
>
>    - ICANN - NextGen conducted by NetMission staff - http://ngi.asia/
>
>
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *3) IG meeting scholarship/fellowship*
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *NOTE: Integral support = airfare, acomodation and stipend; Travel support
> = airfare and acomodation, Partial Suport = describe)*
>
> *ICANN meetings*
>
>    - ICANN Fellowship Program -
>    https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowships-2012-02-25-en
>
>
> *IGF meeting*
>
>    - CGI.Br (Integral support) - http://cgi.br/
>
>
>    - Diplo - based on the performance on the courses
>
>
>    - APC (just for members) -
>    https://www.apc.org/en/projects/member-exchange-and-travel-fund-metf
>
>
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *3.1) Regional IGF meetings*
>
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
>
> *LACIGF - Latin America and Caribe *
>
>    - CGI.Br (integral support) -http://cgi.br/
>
>
>    - LACNIC (Partial: airfare or hotel)
>    http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/programa-de-becas
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3.2) By Country IGF meetings
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Forum da Internet (Brazil) *
>
>    - CGI.Br (Integral Support)
>
>
> *IGF Paraguay (Paraguay)*
>
> Check it
> http://igfpak.org/?p <http://igfpak.org/?p=450>
> <http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=450>=450 <http://igfpak.org/?p=450>
> http://igfpak.org/?p <http://igfpak.org/?p=452>
> <http://piratepad.net/ep/search?query=452>=452 <http://igfpak.org/?p=452>
>
>
> --
> João Carlos R. Caribé
> Consultor
> Skype joaocaribe
> (021) 4042 7727
> (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
>
>


-- 
____
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 <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
[Member, NIRA Executive Board]
Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
<https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria>
NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 <
http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 4
Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 <http://www.ipv6forumnigeria.com.ng
<http://www.ipv6forumnigeria.ng>> - June 5
@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150317/56db7686/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Mar 18 08:21:13 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:21:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <5506C6A6.3030202@gih.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org>
 <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org>
 <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org>
 <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org>
 <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
 <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com>
 <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org>
 <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill>
 <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com>
 <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org>
 <55033538.4060306@gih.com>
 <E1YWkD1-0000g2-Eb@igcaucus.or g>
 <5506C6A6.3030202@gih.com>
Message-ID: <E1YYCxc-0007Im-Jx@igcaucus.org>

At 13:03 16/03/2015, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>On 14/03/2015 11:26, Jefsey wrote:
> > At 20:06 13/03/2015, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> >> Dear Jefsey:
> >> You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th
> >> Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts
> >> in the best interests of Internet end users.
> >
> > I certainly know that this is what you wish and try to do. However,
> > unfortunately, claiming acting in the best interest of Internet end
> > users does not mean directly representing them. Lead users (i.e. the
> > permissionless innovation main potential source) and civil sociey are
> > not represented either (neither directly nor indirectly).
>
>I'd be interested in hearing how you propose representing 3Bn people.

Dear Olivier,

Sorry being late in responding. Lot of problems with ... the 
internet. I have two ISP, but a single IP ???

as you know I am an icannoclast architectonician (the 
inter-achitecture substratum) diktyologist (the network science). 
Also an IETF admirer however, until Russ Housley, an oponent to the 
IAB procrastination. This has a practical reason: my ambition is a 
local user's control on his/her own global digitality.

1. NSA fired me in 1986 because I was in charge of services 
innovation at the de facto international PSN technological monopoly. 
My ambition was not NSA compatible: their job is that the control is 
by the military - and the military industrial establishment obeys (we 
[Tymnet Inc.] had been acquired by McDD - now Boeing).

2. I have carried the ICANN/IANA job for the international PSN for 8 
years. As a service to national monopolies. As a "sub-" monopoly 
(like did Postel)  it works; as a "super-" monopoly it cannot (as 
ICANN is trying) without a sovereign anchor point as the NTIA or the 
FCC. The internet and the DNS are distributed (35000 CLASSes + 
private CLASSes = infinity) and therefore intrinsically competition. 
Wanting to control it as a Commercial Consumer Command cannot 
technically deliver.

When I say that Russ changed that: he did it through OpenStand/RFC 
6852 and the Draft I just appealed. His approach is correct from a 
pragmatic point of view but will fail from a political point of view, 
unless there is an architectonical adjustment we have to find. His 
single point of failure is at the end of 
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/: 
"The NTIA must then consider and approve the proposal."

I am sorry this could have been OK for the US Militaries (their job 
is US Defense) ... before, not for all the other IUsers, US ones 
included. The reason why is that for everyone the networks MUST work, 
and be reliable, sure and secure. No one, no multistakeholder group 
can be technically (not considering politically) trustable enough anymore.

Look, I was involved in the PSN (it took 41.5 years for the FCC to 
adopt the "PSN" word Louis Pouzin gave to the INWG) deployment a few 
months before the Internet project was even introduced, etc.. I 
incorporated France at Large as a non-profit gathering the year 2000's 
French candidates to ICANN (that ICANN refused in ALAC because we had 
no banking account - i.e. we set-up us free from money influence-, I 
was in the Joop Teemstra's IDNO team, I still have the excell table 
of the 1200 voting members of our icannatlarge site which partly led 
to ALAC. I still own the atlarge.org domain name. etc.

 From all this I certainly claim having some expertise about the 
internet intelligent/lead use by individual, medium, large and 
national users. However, I never claimed to represent them, nor to 
act in the "best interest" of all of them. All I can do is to advise, 
and guess if a solution will stand over time.


The problem we face is post-democratic.


For a while I thought it could be polycratic. But I eventually found 
that what I described is actually holocratic. All comes from the 
Pouzin's Paradigm (the network of networks); the Universe is a 
polyade - a monade of monades, to be understood as a fractal polyade 
of polyades, with a special category: the core monades. This is 
purely architectonic (i.e. you can have several architectures to 
address the problem).

Two architectonies (architectonic models) have been documented by the 
WSIS and by Russ Housley and his fellow chairs, at the time, of IAB, 
IEEE, ISOC and W3C.

1. the WSIS consensually committed in Tunis to a people centric 
esthetic for the Information Society.
2. the multistakeholder SDO panel discovered that the "huge bounty" 
realized by the global economy resulted from a working normative 
paradigm "where the economics of global markets, fueled by 
technological advancements, drive global deployment of standards 
regardless of their formal status".

Ethics is the acknowledge way to reach an esthetic. Here we have to 
consider ethitechnics. i.e. the way to technically organize thing for 
them to be easier/cheaper to use in an ethical manner than otherwise.

My position is that the WSIS produced an omnistakeholder consensus 
which is an architectonical MUST; while the OpenStand 
muiltistakeholder consensus is an architectonical SHOULD. The 
historical, political, economical importance of the USG (as well as 
Europe and BRICS) can be considered as MAYs.

The way decisions are actually networked is as follows : people 
become aware, they discuss, they chose their own solutions, they 
adapt then through mutual experimentation (sometimes under influence 
- the mission of the IETF [RFC 3935] is to "influence the way people 
design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the 
Internet work better" through their documents) - and from this an 
operational consensus emerges.

What we can do is to contribute to the discussion, to develop our own 
solutions (RFC 6852: this is the emergence by coopetition among 
global communities), to embody them in our VGNs (virtual glocal 
networks) and mutually explore/negotiate/adapt their best 
interoperation depending on our different material/immaterial focusses.

As fas I am concerned, after gospelling this for years (discussion), 
I think time has come (due to changes in the relative 
market/political weight and awareness between military, commercial, 
commercial and personal areas; cf. WCIT vote) for many of us to 
concernt and develop our own architectural solutions, not to leave 
that only to the GAFA, USCC, ICANN, BRICS communities.

My personal approach is simple: I call it a "mecagerm" - i.e. the 
germ of a mecanism that can be refined, discussed, etc. and that will 
develop by itself when there are enough interested people. The 
adopted form right now should be an IUser Cooperative Company at the 
Catenet layer (below the Internet/NDN/SDN, etc architecture - i.e. 
the whole that is more that the sum of all the digital network of 
networks of shared local resources) with a metaphorical focus on the 
Missing Layer Six (Presentation Layer: security, intelligence, 
formats, languages) most probably easily implemented as a 
Virtual-OPES [RFC 3835].

The "civil society" noise is only disruptive and a way (like the 
Domain Name "industr"y) to make them believe they are important to 
the network and create a blablasystem defense (with its travel around 
alibi anchorage) for the true political/industrial/military game - 
where those who count are not those who are heard ...

Cheers.
jfc













>As for civil society, members of civil society organisations are
>extensively participating in the working group. Again there, I think it
>is wise to say they act in the best interest of their community.
>
>The term "representing" has, IMHO, been used too liberally in recent
>years with self appointed people "representing" others who do not know
>anything about their representation.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Olivier


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

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Mar 19 12:52:08 2015
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:52:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLugFR=TxDYG=Ncy=S=H+MunyBMBdB+1Pciz8kg9d=MQVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill>
 <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill>
 <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill>
 <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill>
 <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill> <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com> <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org>
 <55033538.4060306@gih.com> <E1YWkD1-0000g2-Eb@igcaucus.org>
 <5506C6A6.3030202@gih.com> <CAAYFVLugFR=TxDYG=Ncy=S=H+MunyBMBdB+1Pciz8kg9d=MQVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLskPO7A-L=NJt+Th69gi4og339raZBRW=gLTHsBHsTb6A@mail.gmail.com>

Sigo pensando igual...


Para mi parecer, ninguno representa a la comunidad de Internet, y ni
siquiera a la más de 3 mil millones de personas que la utilizan.

¿A los usuarios se les a pedido su opinión, de sus representantes a
dedo?, que mas están por el alto sueldo y las coimas, que por
representar dignamente a los usuarios de Internet.

Sin ir más lejos ¿no se quien representa los intereses de los
internautas en el Perú, en Sudamérica o Latino América y el Caribe,
¿Quienes son y quienes lo han escogido?

Hay tantos intereses corruptos de por medio, que siempre son los
mismos se rotan entre ellos para tapar la podredumbre de aquellas
personas que habiendo sido ¿elegidas? para que sirvan a la sociedad,
han utilizado esta tarea para aprovecharse sin escrúpulos de sus
cargos en su propio beneficio, ego y enriquecimiento personal.


Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo


2015-03-16 11:44 GMT-05:00 José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com>:
> Para mi parecer, ninguno representa a la comunidad de Internet, y ni
> siquiera a la más de 3 mil millones de personas que la utilizan.
>
> ¿A los usuarios se les a pedido su opinión, de sus representantes a
> dedo?, que mas están por el alto sueldo y las coimas, que por
> representar dignamente a los usuarios de Internet.
>
> Sin ir más lejos ¿no se quien representa los intereses de los
> internautas en el Perú, en Sudamérica o Latino América y el Caribe,
> ¿Quienes son y quienes lo han escogido?
>
> Hay tantos intereses corruptos de por medio, que siempre son los
> mismos se rotan entre ellos para tapar la podredumbre de aquellas
> personas que habiendo sido ¿elegidas? para que sirvan a la sociedad,
> han utilizado esta tarea para aprovecharse sin escrúpulos de sus
> cargos en su propio beneficio, ego y enriquecimiento personal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
>                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
>
>
> 2015-03-16 7:03 GMT-05:00 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>:
>> Dear Jefsey,
>>
>> thanks for your kind reply. My comments in-line:
>>
>>
>> On 14/03/2015 11:26, Jefsey wrote:
>>> At 20:06 13/03/2015, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>>> Dear Jefsey:
>>>> You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th
>>>> Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts
>>>> in the best interests of Internet end users.
>>>
>>> I certainly know that this is what you wish and try to do. However,
>>> unfortunately, claiming acting in the best interest of Internet end
>>> users does not mean directly representing them. Lead users (i.e. the
>>> permissionless innovation main potential source) and civil sociey are
>>> not represented either (neither directly nor indirectly).
>>
>> I'd be interested in hearing how you propose representing 3Bn people.
>> As for civil society, members of civil society organisations are
>> extensively participating in the working group. Again there, I think it
>> is wise to say they act in the best interest of their community.
>>
>> The term "representing" has, IMHO, been used too liberally in recent
>> years with self appointed people "representing" others who do not know
>> anything about their representation.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your 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  Thu Mar 19 19:17:39 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:17:39 +1100
Subject: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought
Message-ID: <94DA71CE522E4C909EC24EE71F967D59@Toshiba>

I am writing this, purely as an individual, to get some feeling for how civil society members feel about expanding the membership of the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG).

CSCG was established a few years ago as a conduit for the selection of civil society members to outside bodies. In the last 12 months, it has been successful in being recognised by bodies such as IGF, UNDESA, 1Net, and NMI. In particular, in last years MAG nominations, we were able to get significantly better representation than in previous years.

There is no thought to expand the limited and specific scope of what CSCG does; it’s mission is purely to work on selection of civil society members to outside bodies. But there has been discussions since its inception about its make up and how that might evolve.

The current members of CSCG are NCSG, Best Bits, Just Net Coalition, IGC, and APC – all large coalitions of civil society groups and individuals, and all represented by busy individuals. Until recently, Diplo Foundation was also a member; however, while still very supportive of CSCG, they felt that, as they were not a civil society specific organisation nor a coalition, perhaps their membership was not appropriate as an organisation.

My own role is as an independent chair for a fixed term. I am happy to continue facilitating processes where civil society representatives need to be chosen for outside bodies, but I am not in a position to carry out other tasks that would be useful for CSCG at this time – getting together a simple charter, a web presence, etc.

It is these issues, plus the more overall question as to how we can best represent the diversity of civil society voices, that lead me to suggest that perhaps the group should be expanded to include say 2-3 individuals well respected people actively involved with civil society networks and organisations.

I am interested in what people think of this idea. On the one hand, it would move CSCG away from the pure “coalition of coalitions” model; but on the other hand, it would allow the involvement of other organisations and individuals.

Comments please. There are differing opinions within CSCG about this, I am interested in a wider consultation to see what the broader group thinks.

If there was broad support for moving in this direction, I would imagine CSCG would conduct an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process to identify interested parties.

Feel free to copy to other lists – but as I might not read them perhaps copy any suggestions back here or send to me directly.



Ian Peter








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150320/250a35d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Thu Mar 19 19:30:04 2015
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:00:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought
In-Reply-To: <94DA71CE522E4C909EC24EE71F967D59@Toshiba>
References: <94DA71CE522E4C909EC24EE71F967D59@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0H1mPAhuofa4o6BtxPpsZB1JkCCkxr07eO9yhb8noV8ww@mail.gmail.com>

Good idea. This is a required measure.

Sivasubramanian M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   I am writing this, purely as an individual, to get some feeling for how
> civil society members feel about expanding the membership of the Civil
> Society Coordination Group (CSCG).
>
> CSCG was established a few years ago as a conduit for the selection of
> civil society members to outside bodies. In the last 12 months, it has been
> successful in being recognised by bodies such as IGF, UNDESA, 1Net, and
> NMI. In particular, in last years MAG nominations, we were able to get
> significantly better representation than in previous years.
>
> There is no thought to expand the limited and specific scope of what CSCG
> does; it’s mission is purely to work on selection of civil society members
> to outside bodies. But there has been discussions since its inception about
> its make up and how that might evolve.
>
> The current members of CSCG are NCSG, Best Bits, Just Net Coalition, IGC,
> and APC – all large coalitions of civil society groups and individuals, and
> all represented by busy individuals. Until recently, Diplo Foundation was
> also a member; however, while still very supportive of CSCG, they felt
> that, as they were not a civil society specific organisation nor a
> coalition, perhaps their membership was not appropriate as an organisation.
>
> My own role is as an independent chair for a fixed term. I am happy to
> continue facilitating processes where civil society representatives need to
> be chosen for outside bodies, but I am not in a position to carry out other
> tasks that would be useful for CSCG at this time – getting together a
> simple charter, a web presence, etc.
>
> It is these issues, plus the more overall question as to how we can best
> represent the diversity of civil society voices, that lead me to suggest
> that perhaps the group should be expanded to include say 2-3 individuals
> well respected people actively involved with civil society networks and
> organisations.
>
> I am interested in what people think of this idea. On the one hand, it
> would move CSCG away from the pure “coalition of coalitions” model; but on
> the other hand, it would allow the involvement of other organisations and
> individuals.
>
> Comments please. There are differing opinions within CSCG about this, I am
> interested in a wider consultation to see what the broader group thinks.
>
> If there was broad support for moving in this direction, I would imagine
> CSCG would conduct an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process to identify
> interested parties.
>
> Feel free to copy to other lists – but as I might not read them perhaps
> copy any suggestions back here or send to me directly.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150320/ad9e6ddd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Thu Mar 19 21:29:22 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:29:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLskPO7A-L=NJt+Th69gi4og339raZBRW=gLTHsBHsTb6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com> <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill> <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com> <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com> <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org> <55033538.4060306@gih.com> <E1YWkD1-0000g2-Eb@igcaucus.org> <5506C6A6.3030202@gih.com> <CAAYFVLugFR=TxDYG=Ncy=S=H+MunyBMBdB+1Pciz8kg9d=MQVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAYFVLskPO7A-L=NJt+Th69gi4og339raZBRW=gLTHsBHsTb6A@mail.gmail!
 .com>
Message-ID: <550B77F1.9030309@gmail.com>

my very bad translation of the text from Jose Felix from spanish to english:

I still think the same...

To my mind, none represents the Internet community, and even to the more 
than three billion people who use it.

What users are asked for their opinions, their representatives finger? 
What else are the high salary and bribes, which worthily represent 
Internet users.

Without going further, who is taking does not represent the interests of 
Internet users in Peru, South America or Latin America and the 
Caribbean. Who are they and those who have chosen?

There are so many interests on corruption involved, that are the same 
are rotated between them to cover the rot, that those who have been 
(chosen?) to serve society, have used this task to take advantage 
unscrupulous office for their own benefit, ego and personal enrichment.

Sincerely:
José Félix Arias Ynche
Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo



Dear José Félix, (the spanish version behind)

i am very thankful for your statement. But to speak about this stupid 
system today, what we name "InterNet", is not enough. We have to speak 
about, what system architecture we need, that we don't need any 
representation.

Olivier and Jefsey have the same perspectives. But, they prefer another 
way. They think, it is impossible for us to create our real Inter-Net. 
And the most people in Latin America think the same. But without our own 
activity we never come to a self-controlled "transport system for 
digital data in packet form", the internet.

The conditions rests in the architecture. And, of course, in our 
independence in the technology.

In the architecture:

The base are the full autonomous local network. Every local community, 
small or big, organize this with all functionality, what they need. And, 
of course, with all server structures, what they need.

This local networks connect to his neighbors. The result is the mesh-net 
of local networks.

The global part of the IP-address is derived from the geographical 
position of the local network. The second part of the IP-address is the 
local address. But this is totally depend of the people local.

Our transport capacity is in principle always symmetrical in both 
directions. Therefore, every host can act as a client and server. Only 
the people decide it self.

You find it all in my proposal to NetMundial. It is a proposal for 
discussion for our real Inter-Net.

In the technology.

This is a task, that we have to organize global. "global thinking, local 
doing" based on "knowledge is always world heritage". This is the base 
for free technology. Free to use for all people on our planet. And free 
in the development as a "free association of free members".

With that we can create the necessary technical components for our 
transport system. it is only depend on us. But if we never start, we 
never come to the end. We have to do it.

But never with private companies, never with any state institutions. 
Only with the people in a open and free environment. We cooperate only 
with the people in the private companies, in the state institutions.

And all this, we can do it in every location on our planet.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia



Estimado José Félix,

estoy muy agradecido por su declaración. Pero para hablar de este 
sistema estúpido hoy, lo que denominamos "Internet", no es suficiente. 
Tenemos que hablar, lo que la arquitectura del sistema que necesitamos, 
que no necesitamos ninguna representación.

Olivier y Jefsey tienen las mismas perspectivas. Pero, prefieren otra 
forma. Ellos piensan, es imposible para nosotros para crear nuestra 
verdadera Inter-Net. Y la mayoría de las personas en América Latina 
piensan lo mismo. Pero sin nuestra propia actividad que nunca lleguemos 
a un dominio propio "sistema de transporte para datos digitales en forma 
de paquete", el internet.

Las condiciones descansa en la arquitectura. Y, por supuesto, en nuestra 
independencia en la tecnología.

En la arquitectura:

La base es la red local autónoma completa. Cada comunidad local, pequeño 
o grande, organizar esto con toda la funcionalidad, lo que necesitan. Y, 
por supuesto, con todas las estructuras de servidor, lo que necesitan.

Esta redes locales se conectan a sus vecinos. El resultado es la red de 
malla de las redes locales.

La parte global de la dirección IP se deriva de la posición geográfica 
de la red local. La segunda parte de la dirección IP es la dirección 
local. Pero esto es totalmente depende de la gente local.

Nuestra capacidad de transporte es, en principio, siempre simétrica en 
ambas direcciones. Por lo tanto, cada host puede actuar como un cliente 
y el servidor. Sólo el pueblo decida si mismo.

Usted encontrará todo en mi propuesta de NetMundial. Es una propuesta 
para la discusión de nuestra verdadera Inter-Net.

En la tecnología.

Esta es una tarea que tenemos que organizar global. "pensamiento global, 
el hacer locales", basada en "el conocimiento es siempre patrimonio de 
la humanidad/patrimonio del mundo". Esta es la base de la tecnología 
libre. De uso libre para todos los habitantes de nuestro planeta. Y 
libre en el desarrollo como una "asociación libre de los miembros libres".

Con eso podemos crear los componentes técnicos necesarios para nuestro 
sistema de transporte. Sólo se depende de nosotros. Pero si nunca 
empezamos, nunca llegamos al final. Tenemos que hacerlo.

Pero nunca con las empresas privadas, nunca con ningún instituciones del 
Estado. Sólo con la gente en un entorno abierto y libre. Colaboramos 
sólo con las personas en las empresas privadas, en las instituciones del 
Estado.

Y todo esto, podemos hacerlo en todos los puntos de nuestro planeta.

con muchos saludos, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 19/03/2015 um 12:52 p.m. schrieb José Félix Arias Ynche:
> Sigo pensando igual...
>
>
> Para mi parecer, ninguno representa a la comunidad de Internet, y ni
> siquiera a la más de 3 mil millones de personas que la utilizan.
>
> ¿A los usuarios se les a pedido su opinión, de sus representantes a
> dedo?, que mas están por el alto sueldo y las coimas, que por
> representar dignamente a los usuarios de Internet.
>
> Sin ir más lejos ¿no se quien representa los intereses de los
> internautas en el Perú, en Sudamérica o Latino América y el Caribe,
> ¿Quienes son y quienes lo han escogido?
>
> Hay tantos intereses corruptos de por medio, que siempre son los
> mismos se rotan entre ellos para tapar la podredumbre de aquellas
> personas que habiendo sido ¿elegidas? para que sirvan a la sociedad,
> han utilizado esta tarea para aprovecharse sin escrúpulos de sus
> cargos en su propio beneficio, ego y enriquecimiento personal.
>
>
> Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
>                          Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
>



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [governance] For information
Datum: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:03:50 +0000
Von: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com>

Dear Jefsey,
thanks for your kind reply. My comments in-line:


On 14/03/2015 11:26, Jefsey wrote:
> At 20:06 13/03/2015, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> Dear Jefsey:
>> You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th
>> Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts
>> in the best interests of Internet end users.
>
> I certainly know that this is what you wish and try to do. However,
> unfortunately, claiming acting in the best interest of Internet end
> users does not mean directly representing them. Lead users (i.e. the
> permissionless innovation main potential source) and civil sociey are
> not represented either (neither directly nor indirectly).

I'd be interested in hearing how you propose representing 3Bn people.
As for civil society, members of civil society organisations are
extensively participating in the working group. Again there, I think it
is wise to say they act in the best interest of their community.

The term "representing" has, IMHO, been used too liberally in recent
years with self appointed people "representing" others who do not know
anything about their representation.

Kind regards,
Olivier


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 19 23:16:30 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 04:16:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought
In-Reply-To: <94DA71CE522E4C909EC24EE71F967D59@Toshiba>
References: <94DA71CE522E4C909EC24EE71F967D59@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYr60m_kSmzTsWFev+f_bG0Ztm9D5o8ZtYRRHJaMLb2esQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ian,

Do you have in mind some large CS coalitions that could be an effective
increment to the CSCG ?
  .
Best. Louis.
- - -

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>
> I am writing this, purely as an individual, to get some feeling for how
> civil society members feel about expanding the membership of the Civil
> Society Coordination Group (CSCG).
>
> CSCG was established a few years ago as a conduit for the selection of
> civil society members to outside bodies. In the last 12 months, it has been
> successful in being recognised by bodies such as IGF, UNDESA, 1Net, and
> NMI. In particular, in last years MAG nominations, we were able to get
> significantly better representation than in previous years.
>
> There is no thought to expand the limited and specific scope of what CSCG
> does; it's mission is purely to work on selection of civil society members
> to outside bodies. But there has been discussions since its inception about
> its make up and how that might evolve.
>
> The current members of CSCG are NCSG, Best Bits, Just Net Coalition, IGC,
> and APC - all large coalitions of civil society groups and individuals, and
> all represented by busy individuals. Until recently, Diplo Foundation was
> also a member; however, while still very supportive of CSCG, they felt
> that, as they were not a civil society specific organisation nor a
> coalition, perhaps their membership was not appropriate as an organisation.
>
> My own role is as an independent chair for a fixed term. I am happy to
> continue facilitating processes where civil society representatives need to
> be chosen for outside bodies, but I am not in a position to carry out other
> tasks that would be useful for CSCG at this time - getting together a
> simple charter, a web presence, etc.
>
> It is these issues, plus the more overall question as to how we can best
> represent the diversity of civil society voices, that lead me to suggest
> that perhaps the group should be expanded to include say 2-3 individuals
> well respected people actively involved with civil society networks and
> organisations.
>
> I am interested in what people think of this idea. On the one hand, it
> would move CSCG away from the pure "coalition of coalitions" model; but on
> the other hand, it would allow the involvement of other organisations and
> individuals.
>
> Comments please. There are differing opinions within CSCG about this, I am
> interested in a wider consultation to see what the broader group thinks.
>
> If there was broad support for moving in this direction, I would imagine
> CSCG would conduct an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process to identify
> interested parties.
>
> Feel free to copy to other lists - but as I might not read them perhaps
> copy any suggestions back here or send to me directly.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150320/6952770e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Mar 19 23:39:09 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:39:09 +1100
Subject: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYr60m_kSmzTsWFev+f_bG0Ztm9D5o8ZtYRRHJaMLb2esQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <94DA71CE522E4C909EC24EE71F967D59@Toshiba> <CA+EjHYr60m_kSmzTsWFev+f_bG0Ztm9D5o8ZtYRRHJaMLb2esQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <83AA254D9D854437B26AAC0AEA93E56C@Toshiba>

Hi Louis,

I  have no particular organisations, coalitions or persons in mind.  But there are a lot of very impressive people and organisations around the civil society groups, and in affiliated organisations which are not purely civil society (eg Diplo, dynamic coalitions etc).

So no, no particular people or organisations in mind at all – and in any case any decision on who would might be added to CSCG would not be mine. More it’s the idea that we might be more effective and more representative if some additional members were added that I wanted to get feedback on.

Ian

From: Louis Pouzin (well) 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:16 PM
To: Ian Peter 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought

Hi Ian,

Do you have in mind some large CS coalitions that could be an effective increment to the CSCG ?
  .
Best. Louis.
- - -


On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:


  I am writing this, purely as an individual, to get some feeling for how civil society members feel about expanding the membership of the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG).

  CSCG was established a few years ago as a conduit for the selection of civil society members to outside bodies. In the last 12 months, it has been successful in being recognised by bodies such as IGF, UNDESA, 1Net, and NMI. In particular, in last years MAG nominations, we were able to get significantly better representation than in previous years.

  There is no thought to expand the limited and specific scope of what CSCG does; it’s mission is purely to work on selection of civil society members to outside bodies. But there has been discussions since its inception about its make up and how that might evolve.

  The current members of CSCG are NCSG, Best Bits, Just Net Coalition, IGC, and APC – all large coalitions of civil society groups and individuals, and all represented by busy individuals. Until recently, Diplo Foundation was also a member; however, while still very supportive of CSCG, they felt that, as they were not a civil society specific organisation nor a coalition, perhaps their membership was not appropriate as an organisation.

  My own role is as an independent chair for a fixed term. I am happy to continue facilitating processes where civil society representatives need to be chosen for outside bodies, but I am not in a position to carry out other tasks that would be useful for CSCG at this time – getting together a simple charter, a web presence, etc.

  It is these issues, plus the more overall question as to how we can best represent the diversity of civil society voices, that lead me to suggest that perhaps the group should be expanded to include say 2-3 individuals well respected people actively involved with civil society networks and organisations.

  I am interested in what people think of this idea. On the one hand, it would move CSCG away from the pure “coalition of coalitions” model; but on the other hand, it would allow the involvement of other organisations and individuals.

  Comments please. There are differing opinions within CSCG about this, I am interested in a wider consultation to see what the broader group thinks.

  If there was broad support for moving in this direction, I would imagine CSCG would conduct an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process to identify interested parties.

  Feel free to copy to other lists – but as I might not read them perhaps copy any suggestions back here or send to me directly.

  Ian Peter


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150320/b57edcdb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Fri Mar 20 00:10:49 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:10:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought
In-Reply-To: <83AA254D9D854437B26AAC0AEA93E56C@Toshiba>
References: <94DA71CE522E4C909EC24EE71F967D59@Toshiba> <CA+EjHYr60m_kSmzTsWFev+f_bG0Ztm9D5o8ZtYRRHJaMLb2esQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <83AA254D9D854437B26AAC0AEA93E56C@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYqi1eq+U0GcseQ7tp=THUrwGXxqKG_r3W2=51tjbTVKhA@mail.gmail.com>

Ian,

I am perhaps misinformed on existing CS groups, but I wonder if more
available expertise would be handy on international instruments
(declarations, recommandations, conventions, protocols, etc.).
  .
Louis
- - -

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Hi Louis,
>
> I  have no particular organisations, coalitions or persons in mind.  But
> there are a lot of very impressive people and organisations around the
> civil society groups, and in affiliated organisations which are not purely
> civil society (eg Diplo, dynamic coalitions etc).
>
> So no, no particular people or organisations in mind at all - and in any
> case any decision on who would might be added to CSCG would not be mine.
> More it's the idea that we might be more effective and more representative
> if some additional members were added that I wanted to get feedback on.
>
> Ian
>
>  *From:* Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 2:16 PM
> *To:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought
>
>  Hi Ian,
>
> Do you have in mind some large CS coalitions that could be an effective
> increment to the CSCG ?
>   .
> Best. Louis.
> - - -
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150320/f6cd80d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Mar 20 01:12:30 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:12:30 +1100
Subject: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYqi1eq+U0GcseQ7tp=THUrwGXxqKG_r3W2=51tjbTVKhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <94DA71CE522E4C909EC24EE71F967D59@Toshiba> <CA+EjHYr60m_kSmzTsWFev+f_bG0Ztm9D5o8ZtYRRHJaMLb2esQ@mail.gmail.com> <83AA254D9D854437B26AAC0AEA93E56C@Toshiba> <CA+EjHYqi1eq+U0GcseQ7tp=THUrwGXxqKG_r3W2=51tjbTVKhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6C3719D4C1B3443295A4ABE9AF9B06EA@Toshiba>

Yes I think that would be very useful Louis. But I think the core requirement is people able to think beyond their own individual organisations and affiliations to ensure balanced representation of all civil society viewpoints. I think the current representatives do that well, but I do think that is central to what CSCG and its role in choosing representatives on behalf of civil society is all about.

Ian

From: Louis Pouzin (well) 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:10 PM
To: Ian Peter 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought

Ian,

I am perhaps misinformed on existing CS groups, but I wonder if more available expertise would be handy on international instruments (declarations, recommandations, conventions, protocols, etc.).
  .
Louis
- - -


On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

  Hi Louis,

  I  have no particular organisations, coalitions or persons in mind.  But there are a lot of very impressive people and organisations around the civil society groups, and in affiliated organisations which are not purely civil society (eg Diplo, dynamic coalitions etc).

  So no, no particular people or organisations in mind at all – and in any case any decision on who would might be added to CSCG would not be mine. More it’s the idea that we might be more effective and more representative if some additional members were added that I wanted to get feedback on.

  Ian

  From: Louis Pouzin (well) 
  Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:16 PM
  To: Ian Peter 
  Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
  Subject: Re: [governance] CSCG membership - comments sought

  Hi Ian,

  Do you have in mind some large CS coalitions that could be an effective increment to the CSCG ?
    .
  Best. Louis.
  - - -



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150320/118a5b14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Sat Mar 21 04:58:01 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 04:58:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] EVENT 3/26: A Digital Magna Carta : Internet
 Governance and a New Social Contract
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk26Kg1nO=cO5Kqftu8Bk2pOzY_JpKq3yTy5h4AR_qjrow@mail.gmail.com>

It was the Geneva Declaration
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html> in 2003 which
launched the WSIS process
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society>
that led to the formation of the IGF.  Tim Berners Lee, who we will not
forget developed the World Wide Web in Switzerland, recently called
for a "Digital
Magna Carta
<http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_a_magna_carta_for_the_web>".
Geneva has been rumored
<http://domainincite.com/14390-no-icann-isnt-moving-to-switzerland> as a
possible future home for ICANN. ISOC already has one of its two global
offices there. Lastly, of course the NETmundial Initiative
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetMundial_Initiative> was founded at the
WEF in Davos. So it is no small wonder that the Swiss Consulate in NYC is
taking an interest in Internet Governance! To talk about it they are flying
in some great speakers, including ISOC-NY member George Sadowsky, ISOC
Global's Constance Bommelaer, and Diplo's Jovan Kurbalija . Permission to
livestream has been requested and I will confirm if it comes through. In
person attendees should sign up right away as it's not a big room.


 joly posted: "On Thursday March 26 2015 the Consulate General of
Switzerland and the New America Foundation present A Digital Magna Carta :
Internet Governance and a New Social Contract. A distinguished panel will
discuss the future of the Internet in an increasingly c"


[image: digital magna carta]
<http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>On *Thursday March 26
2015* the *Consulate General of Switzerland*
<http://facebook.com/SwissConsulateNewYork> and the *New America Foundation*
<http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/> present *A Digital Magna Carta : Internet
Governance and a New Social Contract
<http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>*. A distinguished
panel will discuss the future of the Internet in an increasingly connected,
globalized world. Speakers: *Dr. Jovan Kurbalija*, Director,
DiploFoundation, & Author, *Introduction to Internet Governance*
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/introduction-internet-governance>
; *Constance Bommelaer*, Senior Director for Global Policy Partnerships,
Internet Society; *Olivier Sylvain*, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham
University;*George Sadowsky*, Member, Internet Governance Forum series, &
Member, Board of Directors,  Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN); *Stefaan Verhulst*, Co-founder and Chief Research and
Development Officer, the Governance Lab. It will be recorded for a New
America Foundation audio podcast <https://soundcloud.com/newamerica>.






*What: A Digital Magna Carta : Internet Governance and a New Social
Contract <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>Where: NAF
NYC, 199 Lafayette Street, Suite 3B, New York, NY 10012When: Thursday March
26 2015
6:30pm-8:15pmRegister: http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/
<http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>Webcast: t.b.d.
(audio podcast <https://soundcloud.com/newamerica>)Twitter: #nanyc
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23NANYC>*




Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7657#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7657#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7657






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150321/a36b0fab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Sat Mar 21 23:59:04 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 23:59:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Online Retransmission Consent and DMCA Liability
 Protections
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBz9EsR7LS1g1SJ=MdeHA8YyqRM8z+O2ybPjhqQRUKMfkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFByO--PdiePhD82ArvCKbD=1e58zvLU3Gf4RGe1uL9kqeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFByP3NSq0Z9eooO4j7_H=t4mO-Xat9CcUks2onTb9-BsAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBz9EsR7LS1g1SJ=MdeHA8YyqRM8z+O2ybPjhqQRUKMfkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwcnK9GA-HFHGeWY7T5Tc5LBaDcT9VzC8TiN0T3_8szoA@mail.gmail.com>

(*Sort of* US-centric, but still of note, for those either concerned
about the broadcaster's treaty or modalities of online
stewardship/governance)

Hello all, at the following link you will find the FCC's NPRM for
establishing a "retransmission consent" regime online for a specific
class of online services called Multichannel Video Programming
Distributors. It addresses all services that make multiple linear
video programming streams available online on a subscription basis:
> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/15/2014-30777/promoting-innovation-and-competition-in-the-provision-of-multichannel-video-programming-distribution

It would establish the first formal exception to the broad protections
against copyright infringement liability provided to online service
providers under the DMCA's Notice and Takedown procedures -- and it is
being proposed by the FCC, not by Congress.

In addition, I was informed in an email exchange a week before this
NPRM was initiated that the US sees retransmission consent as a basis
for the national implementation that would be required for the
Broadcaster's Treaty, a treaty proposing to establish a new
international layer of rights for broadcasters online that is not yet
formalized or ratified, but which has been regularly resurrected
despite ongoing opposition and concern voiced by many organizations.
With the national implementation already in place, treaty negotiators
could readily ratify and implement the Broadcaster's Treaty without
the domestic public and legislative debate that it warrants.  The FCC
makes no mention in this NPRM of this relationship between
establishing retransmission consent online under domestic law and the
Broadcaster's Treaty.

Here's my submission, submitted on the final day of the Reply Comments
period (They were extended to this past Wednesday):
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001027037

It encourages the FCC to recognize this as a proposition that should
be taken up through legislative channels that hold the power to
address, as a matter of copyright, the scope of the DMCA's liability
protections, and to be forthright about the implication of this
regulatory act serving as a national implementation, before the fact,
of the Broadcaster's Treaty.

Most of you know that we not only rely on our telecommunications
environment to assure our ability to to freely enter the network of
networks, peer among ourselves and offer services online, but we also
benefit from protection from copyright liability which would otherwise
hamper our ability to make the most effective and valuable use of the
Internet's potential, as we act as intermediaries.  Otherwise we would
all become liable as soon as we open a port and run a server of nearly
any kind that involves users exchanging information.

While the online safe harbor the DMCA created in 1998 might have
served to provide a space in which we could deliberate the types of
policies that are appropriate for the new medium, this is not how
things have developed.  It would seem to me to that now, when we are
in the midst of a process of contemplating a transition to new modes
of stewardship and governance for the Internet, that we should make
sure that actions like this don't occur without our making sure we
have the opportunity to address them properly.

I encourage everyone to ask the FCC, the State Department, various
relevant agencies and Congress to open up the discourse on the full
implications of the proposal to establish retransmission consent on
the Internet.

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

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Sun Mar 22 02:42:27 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 02:42:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Online Retransmission Consent and DMCA
 Liability Protections
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBwcnK9GA-HFHGeWY7T5Tc5LBaDcT9VzC8TiN0T3_8szoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFByO--PdiePhD82ArvCKbD=1e58zvLU3Gf4RGe1uL9kqeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFByP3NSq0Z9eooO4j7_H=t4mO-Xat9CcUks2onTb9-BsAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz9EsR7LS1g1SJ=MdeHA8YyqRM8z+O2ybPjhqQRUKMfkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBwcnK9GA-HFHGeWY7T5Tc5LBaDcT9VzC8TiN0T3_8szoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1_7-B5Y30XKevkuhg1Lo0NNV9qBJBBDY8Po=MpgwDJUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Last Wednesday I video'd a Copyright Society lunchtime panel on the
aftermath of aereo, which included the lead litigator in the Cablevision
case.

The current MVPD cases and the changing FCC landscape were only touched on
tangentially and there was no mention of the DMCA at all that I can recall.

I will post it early in the week.

I also reprocessed the FCC budget hearing on Thursday but I haven;t indexed
it yet. If you have any hot timecodes please feed them back or put them in
the comments.

https://youtu.be/sawGxJ8d2Kk

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> (*Sort of* US-centric, but still of note, for those either concerned
> about the broadcaster's treaty or modalities of online
> stewardship/governance)
>
> Hello all, at the following link you will find the FCC's NPRM for
> establishing a "retransmission consent" regime online for a specific
> class of online services called Multichannel Video Programming
> Distributors. It addresses all services that make multiple linear
> video programming streams available online on a subscription basis:
> >
> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/15/2014-30777/promoting-innovation-and-competition-in-the-provision-of-multichannel-video-programming-distribution
>
> It would establish the first formal exception to the broad protections
> against copyright infringement liability provided to online service
> providers under the DMCA's Notice and Takedown procedures -- and it is
> being proposed by the FCC, not by Congress.
>
> In addition, I was informed in an email exchange a week before this
> NPRM was initiated that the US sees retransmission consent as a basis
> for the national implementation that would be required for the
> Broadcaster's Treaty, a treaty proposing to establish a new
> international layer of rights for broadcasters online that is not yet
> formalized or ratified, but which has been regularly resurrected
> despite ongoing opposition and concern voiced by many organizations.
> With the national implementation already in place, treaty negotiators
> could readily ratify and implement the Broadcaster's Treaty without
> the domestic public and legislative debate that it warrants.  The FCC
> makes no mention in this NPRM of this relationship between
> establishing retransmission consent online under domestic law and the
> Broadcaster's Treaty.
>
> Here's my submission, submitted on the final day of the Reply Comments
> period (They were extended to this past Wednesday):
> > http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001027037
>
> It encourages the FCC to recognize this as a proposition that should
> be taken up through legislative channels that hold the power to
> address, as a matter of copyright, the scope of the DMCA's liability
> protections, and to be forthright about the implication of this
> regulatory act serving as a national implementation, before the fact,
> of the Broadcaster's Treaty.
>
> Most of you know that we not only rely on our telecommunications
> environment to assure our ability to to freely enter the network of
> networks, peer among ourselves and offer services online, but we also
> benefit from protection from copyright liability which would otherwise
> hamper our ability to make the most effective and valuable use of the
> Internet's potential, as we act as intermediaries.  Otherwise we would
> all become liable as soon as we open a port and run a server of nearly
> any kind that involves users exchanging information.
>
> While the online safe harbor the DMCA created in 1998 might have
> served to provide a space in which we could deliberate the types of
> policies that are appropriate for the new medium, this is not how
> things have developed.  It would seem to me to that now, when we are
> in the midst of a process of contemplating a transition to new modes
> of stewardship and governance for the Internet, that we should make
> sure that actions like this don't occur without our making sure we
> have the opportunity to address them properly.
>
> I encourage everyone to ask the FCC, the State Department, various
> relevant agencies and Congress to open up the discourse on the full
> implications of the proposal to establish retransmission consent on
> the Internet.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/79e8f205/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Sun Mar 22 02:42:48 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 02:42:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Online Retransmission Consent and DMCA
 Liability Protections
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBwcnK9GA-HFHGeWY7T5Tc5LBaDcT9VzC8TiN0T3_8szoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFByO--PdiePhD82ArvCKbD=1e58zvLU3Gf4RGe1uL9kqeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFByP3NSq0Z9eooO4j7_H=t4mO-Xat9CcUks2onTb9-BsAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz9EsR7LS1g1SJ=MdeHA8YyqRM8z+O2ybPjhqQRUKMfkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBwcnK9GA-HFHGeWY7T5Tc5LBaDcT9VzC8TiN0T3_8szoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3EVqBGbWP0HY93wPLc_KN=ZeX-ZvPHKRcSN895-QyKUA@mail.gmail.com>

Last Wednesday I video'd a Copyright Society lunchtime panel on the
aftermath of aereo, which included the lead litigator in the Cablevision
case.

The current MVPD cases and the changing FCC landscape were only touched on
tangentially and there was no mention of the DMCA at all that I can recall.

I will post it early in the week.

I also reprocessed the FCC budget hearing on Thursday but I haven;t indexed
it yet. If you have any hot timecodes please feed them back or put them in
the comments.

https://youtu.be/sawGxJ8d2Kk

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> (*Sort of* US-centric, but still of note, for those either concerned
> about the broadcaster's treaty or modalities of online
> stewardship/governance)
>
> Hello all, at the following link you will find the FCC's NPRM for
> establishing a "retransmission consent" regime online for a specific
> class of online services called Multichannel Video Programming
> Distributors. It addresses all services that make multiple linear
> video programming streams available online on a subscription basis:
> >
> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/15/2014-30777/promoting-innovation-and-competition-in-the-provision-of-multichannel-video-programming-distribution
>
> It would establish the first formal exception to the broad protections
> against copyright infringement liability provided to online service
> providers under the DMCA's Notice and Takedown procedures -- and it is
> being proposed by the FCC, not by Congress.
>
> In addition, I was informed in an email exchange a week before this
> NPRM was initiated that the US sees retransmission consent as a basis
> for the national implementation that would be required for the
> Broadcaster's Treaty, a treaty proposing to establish a new
> international layer of rights for broadcasters online that is not yet
> formalized or ratified, but which has been regularly resurrected
> despite ongoing opposition and concern voiced by many organizations.
> With the national implementation already in place, treaty negotiators
> could readily ratify and implement the Broadcaster's Treaty without
> the domestic public and legislative debate that it warrants.  The FCC
> makes no mention in this NPRM of this relationship between
> establishing retransmission consent online under domestic law and the
> Broadcaster's Treaty.
>
> Here's my submission, submitted on the final day of the Reply Comments
> period (They were extended to this past Wednesday):
> > http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001027037
>
> It encourages the FCC to recognize this as a proposition that should
> be taken up through legislative channels that hold the power to
> address, as a matter of copyright, the scope of the DMCA's liability
> protections, and to be forthright about the implication of this
> regulatory act serving as a national implementation, before the fact,
> of the Broadcaster's Treaty.
>
> Most of you know that we not only rely on our telecommunications
> environment to assure our ability to to freely enter the network of
> networks, peer among ourselves and offer services online, but we also
> benefit from protection from copyright liability which would otherwise
> hamper our ability to make the most effective and valuable use of the
> Internet's potential, as we act as intermediaries.  Otherwise we would
> all become liable as soon as we open a port and run a server of nearly
> any kind that involves users exchanging information.
>
> While the online safe harbor the DMCA created in 1998 might have
> served to provide a space in which we could deliberate the types of
> policies that are appropriate for the new medium, this is not how
> things have developed.  It would seem to me to that now, when we are
> in the midst of a process of contemplating a transition to new modes
> of stewardship and governance for the Internet, that we should make
> sure that actions like this don't occur without our making sure we
> have the opportunity to address them properly.
>
> I encourage everyone to ask the FCC, the State Department, various
> relevant agencies and Congress to open up the discourse on the full
> implications of the proposal to establish retransmission consent on
> the Internet.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/18f82841/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Sun Mar 22 03:43:42 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 15:43:42 +0800
Subject: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
 viewpoints
In-Reply-To: <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill>
Message-ID: <6AE46967-30DC-4D61-8316-1C813A469354@difference.com.au>


> On 9 Mar 2015, at 5:38 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
[snipped]
> From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
> hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
> pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
> Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.

	I think that valuable work has been done in discussing the principles of multi-stakeholderism that should be retained, and there is agreement on at least some (no one seems to be against transparency and accountability, though there is still some ambiguity in my mind as to whether JNC favours openness - there seems to be some reluctance to fully extend that principle to being fully open to commercial participation).
What we need from ‘pro-democracy’ advocates is: a clarification of what is meant by democracy within the specific context of trans-national policy work (representative or direct democracy? Deliberative, or just majoritarian? With safeguards to protect minorities from majoritarian excess, or not?), and how it would be implemented. As Milton pointed out, there is not a consensus understanding of what ‘democratic’ means in practice within a trans-national policy process. There are also specific reasons why some Multi-stakeholder groups (most notably the IETF) eschew voting and similar direct democratic methods.
	FWIW, I do not consider any form of ‘1 state 1 vote’ to be particularly democratic, and I do not really understand how broader democratic principles at the global level would be implemented. A commitment to democracy is only meaningful if it can be practically implemented, and while I’d love to see a robust mechanism for global democracy at the transnational level, I have yet to see one that could practically be implemented.

	David


> 
> Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
> those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
> and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
> had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
> government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
> from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
> consensus text along those lines.
> 
> As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
> 
> I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
> "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
> written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
> viewpoints of both sides.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
>> For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
>> proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
>> clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
>> those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
>> written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
>> is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
>> text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
>> perspectives:
>> 
>> 
>> The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
>> my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that
>> 
>> 1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
>> it as a JNC position, and
>> 
>> 2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
>> which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
>> 
>> 3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
>> addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
>> without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
>> consensus.
>> 
>> 
>> Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
>> words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
>> 
>> 
>> Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of concrete
>> proposals on a significant number of topics.
>> 
>> So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
>> was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
>> *global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
>> always possible to reach consensus.
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
>> hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
>> for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
>> policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
>> it is not always possible to reach consensus.
>> 
>> (In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
>> policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
>> of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders
>> should be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in
>> contrast to purely technical matters where the disagreements are about
>> questions of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
>> solution?")
>> 
>> 
>> I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
>> agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
>> the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
>> 
>> 
>> By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
>> discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
>> relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
>> going around in circles.
>> 
>> By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
>> the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
>> characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
>> question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a vast
>> body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics. And I
>> would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it as easy
>> to answer it in a satisfactory way.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> (*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
>> another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
>> distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
>> viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
>> of this distinction.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, 8 Mar
>> 2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>>>>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
>>>>> pro-multi-stakeholder people.  In fact, we have more concrete
>>>>> proposals than you do!
>>>> 
>>>> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
>>>> like I have given a link to my proposal?
>>>> ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)
>>> 
>>> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
>>> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
>>> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
>>> NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my
>>> own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
>>> over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
>>> that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
>>> Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401-
>>> surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none
>>> of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/)
>>> count for anything?
>>> 
>>> If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
>>> multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
>>> calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
>>> proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
>>> expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
>>> the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
>>> that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
>>> and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
>>> point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not
>>> satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
>>> statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
>>> legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
>>> 
>>> I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
>>> has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be
>>> said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting
>>> to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with
>>> a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you think you
>>> don't already have a response to, write to me off list and I'll
>>> point you to it.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/8293a8ff/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Sun Mar 22 03:50:49 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 15:50:49 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com!
 > <54FB76
 8C.4030803@apc .org> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>

Sorry to jump into an old discussion thread, but
> On 8 Mar 2015, at 5:00 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> [MG] sorry I’m not following this… If you are saying that Civil Society has already accomplished a great deal with respect to Internet Governance I would ask that you point to these specific accomplishments.  What I see is a more or less out of control dominance by the status quo with little policy advance to check the power of the elites who control that status quo in the crucial areas such as privacy, surveillance, resource (Internet based wealth) distribution, concentration of decision making power, increasing corporate control and so on… but maybe I’m missing something.

	I think perhaps you are missing something. Perhaps what you are missing is that maintaining ‘the status quo’ (meaning keeping a relatively similar position with regards to rights, etc) is something we have to constantly fight for. And a commitment to ‘democracy’ is not the magic bullet that would win that fight - it is largely pressure from the governments, and particularly law enforcement agencies, of democratic nations that we are fighting against.
	I know that a lot of us in the ICANN world go in to fight for privacy in particular every week. If it seems like the status quo isn’t changing, it is because we are pushing back as hard as we can against a constant push to decrease privacy (from both law enforcement and corporate groups such as intellectual property interests - but the internet industry itself, such registrars, are generally very strong on maintaining privacy).
	And FWIW, as I’m sure you’ve seen - using democratic means to push back against the surveillance state has so far had very little effect. None of the 5 Eyes nations, democracies all, seem to have significantly reduced the power of the surveillance state since the Snowden revelations, and several (sadly, including my country, despite the lobbying campaign my organisation and others have run against it) have increased them. The only meaningful hope we have to reduce mass surveillance significantly in the short term so far comes from technical means, e.g. via the MS internet standards bodies like the IETF. This doesn’t mean we should stop trying to fight mass surveillance by democratic means, of course, but positing mass surveillance as a problem that can and will be solved by adding more democracy to transnational fora seems quite naive.

> Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.
> 
> [MG] Again I think it is important to distinguish between processes of consultation where multistakeholder along with other processes of participation and engagement are absolutely desirable and processes of decision making which require a degree of formality, structure, broad based accountability, inclusiveness, and transparency – none of which characterize Multistakeholder processes as currently constituted.

	Michael, I find that almost all of your criticisms of MS processes are clearly from the perspective of someone who has little experience in participating in them, and has sort of made up a version of what they are like in their head that can’t be moved. Almost all MS processes within ICANN, IETF, RIRs are very transparent (every meeting is open to anyone to listen to, transcripts and audio recordings are made available to the public, every participant has a public SOI, every major output is put out for a public comment period, etc.). Most have a fair degree of formality and structure, with very clearly defined processes documents available, and so on.
	I do think inclusiveness is a constant struggle, but MS processes are, in general, inclusive by design in that they are open. It is true that simply wanting your processes to be inclusive is not enough, but still, it remains the fact that MS processes are open to participation by default, with no active gatekeeping to participation (though of course there are structural barriers to be overcome, and the efforts to overcome those barriers, while well meant, are not magic). This compares with many government processes that are actively gatekeepered.

	And of course, there are processes like the WEF that are not open - and you’ll find most of those who you would claim to be MS advocates here treat those gated processes with great scepticism and do not regard them as being the same kind of process and do not advocate for their use.

	Seriously Michael, come take a closer look at some of our actual MS policy processes. Maybe not participate directly (though if you are really committed to privacy etc, we have plenty of useful work for people to do), but at least follow some processes in real detail - listen to some calls, look at how our processes work. I’m sure you might still be critical of them afterwards, but your criticism would be more valuable if it was better informed.

	David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/7b7d6f9e/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/7b7d6f9e/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Sun Mar 22 04:12:41 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:12:41 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <0b3c01d059cf$24f2ab10$6ed80130$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> <54FC8F!
 4B.907090
 1@wzb.eu> <0b3c01d059cf$24f2ab10$6ed80130$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E496EE98-8822-4B08-884D-C93CF6669409@difference.com.au>


> On 9 Mar 2015, at 2:38 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For anyone who believes that the on-going effort by the USG and its corporate and other allies to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from "democracy" to multistakeholderism is simply "about  words", I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like you to take a look at and put offer on.

	The USG are not attempting to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from “democracy” to multistakeholderism. They are attempting to move the normative practical mechanism of international discourse from multi-lateralism to multi-stakeholderism, which is a very different thing. It is true that the USG has self-interested reasons for doing so - but the reasons are not particularly anti-democratic, the primary reason is because multi-lateral fora that work on the ‘1 nation 1 vote’ principle of the UN do not favour those nations that consider themselves strong democracies at this point. It is vital to not simply associate democracy with voting - 1 nation 1 vote is in no way a democratic principle.
	This seems to be one of the continuing issues that causes conflict between the JNC and civil society. Every time the JNC sees themselves as fighting to empower democracy by fighting multi-stakeholderism, most of the rest of us see the JNC as effectively fighting against democracy by attacking governance fora where democratic nations are strong (particularly via soft power means), and defending governance fora where un-democratic nations are strong.
	There is old ‘road to hell is paved with good intentions’ proverb. I have no doubt JNC has good intentions - but it appears to me they have a great deal of good intentioned bricks labelled ‘democracy’ and use them to pave the road to stronger influence for autocratic anti-democratic nations.

	Which isn’t to say that advocating for more democracy is bad in the least, but it needs to also serve to increase democratic outcomes.

	(sorry for reviving some old threads. Its been a busy couple of weeks)

	David
> 
> "Words"/concepts/norms translate into and consciously and unconsciously frame actions; provide the design parameters for operational mechanisms and institutions; and in a variety of other ways turn themselves into reality, often without our even being aware of those processes--that's the point of words.
> 
> Democracy representing "red lines" that countries like the US won't cross as per what was observed at the UNESCO meeting, and "multistakeholderism" (i.e. governance by self-selected and primarily corporate driven elites) being the widely pursued alternative is about a conscious strategy of changing the aspirational mechanisms of global governance, and not just in the Internet sphere.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: March 8, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus
>> on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with
>> about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to
>> democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people
>> playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the
>> middle of that whole thing, no)?
> 
> Yes, I was, and I am proud of that.
> What I meant to say: Language games played an important role during the intergovernmental negotiation of the WSIS documents. Those with access to the working groups could marvel about these skillful diplomatic maneuvers that could only be deciphered by those who knew the historic subtext of certain wordings. Civil society did not engage in those plays with words. In endless meetings we discussed specific proposals, among them the merits of a new multi-stakeholder forum that would address internet governance issues.
> 
> Sometimes implicit but often enough very explicit, we fought for making the regulation of the Internet a more democratic endevaour. The multi-stakeholder concept was our entry ticket into the dialogue with governments but it was also our approach towards democratizing the global management of the internet.
> 
> Multi-stakeholder was never meant to be separate or even the opposite of democracy. On the contrary, it has been the attempt to expand the democratic idea, which clearly has been optimized and operationalized for the nation state and thus has not  much to offer for the global sphere. There is so much to do, there is so much to experiment and learn, in my view it is misguided to frame the current state of things as a binary choice between democracy and multi-stakeholderism. I don't see how one concept could thrive without the other in the Internet world.
> 
> Right now, it is an open and contested question among civil society groups what democracy on the global level means. Unless we agree on a set of basic principles, it may be impossible to use this term in official documents. Avoiding this term does not imply that any of us consider democracy less relevant than those who want to see it included.
> 
> Jeanette
> 
> Jeanette
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why this gratuitous advice that dont
>> mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word
>> goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.
>> 
>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said
>> at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the
>> term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document,
>> the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been
>> strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it
>> not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar
>> manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest
>> consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on
>> what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very
>> clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>> This discussion is bizarr.
>>> 
>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>> 
>>> Wolfgang
>>> 
>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding
>>> and role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a
>>> consensus on how to effectively operationalize democracy in the
>>> context of the Internet something with which I (and the JNC)
>>> completely agree and which we have been advocating for a long time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus
>>> on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental
>>> pillar of US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could
>>> have sufficient comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for
>>> multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates
>>> acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and
>>> lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view
>>> still needs to be developed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to
>>> include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept
>>> supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in
>>> the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the
>>> UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the
>>> concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware
>>> that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at all.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions,
>>> I have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware
>>> that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history,
>>> take the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the
>>> Democratic Republic of Congo
>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good
>>> to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in
>>> the context of the internet among civil society and academia first
>>> before forcing it into international documents.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a
>>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but
>>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to
>>>> promote "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>>> M
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> 
>>>> [<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>>> 
>>>> Klein
>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>>> To:<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>>>> (<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>>>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting
>>>>> the
>>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important
>>>>> to put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was
>>>>> to give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on
>>>>> the future priorities in this field. This was done in several
>>>>> plenary and
>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into
>>>>> the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all
>>>>> work in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>>> only partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts
>>>>> were elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any significant
>>>>> way in order to deepen their understanding.
>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>> only partly included."
>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference,
>>>> could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
>>>> only partially, included.
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Norbert Klein
>>>> Cambodia
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/33ff68d1/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Sun Mar 22 04:12:56 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:12:56 +0800
Subject: [governance] For information
In-Reply-To: <55033538.4060306@gih.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <CAAUuzMQxr7YLOCAq0=ev5H=mPmLAQd9=EZgdd9c2UoE9c1PbLQ@mail.gmail.com> <F3B5DAE3-E4BB-4E08-8C0E-B38E85B396DD@eff.org> <20150306111242.57b8fc52@quill> <54F9F5BF.3070606@eff.org> <20150307115432.743da728@quill> <2A3B3985-6DFA-494F-8C87-6A3C23C0D840@eff.org> <20150308074148.30d59972@quill> <33218E8E-28E6-466A-9314-4717777D0D0C@eff.org> <20150309093217.1d4c8d1a@quill> <20150309103841.2fcbc347@quill> <D123326D.7285D%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <0ee301d05a72$db446a90$91cd3fb0$@gmail.com> <D12461FB.72982%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org> <CAMz5XN5XfiX8QTdU67=9hWQHXHE4jHm14kkmNJAyTLhtnDMG7g@mail.gmail.com> <20150310174005.25cf4b6c@quill> <CAMz5XN75NB9Y8UUSyRUC6BBS2HZY_UcDW=vvTtLK6HizzKh5Pw@mail.gmail.com> <21760.34647.560601.862451@world.std.com> <E1YVltr-0002yf-7y@igcaucus.org> <55033538.40!
 60306@gih
 .com>
Message-ID: <2F306361-1AF9-46CA-BBC7-3C8FE5B951C4@difference.com.au>

Noting also that Civil society organisations are among those in the GNSO, and so are represented in the ICG. This isn’t an abstract point - NCSG has a direct representative on the ICG (Milton).

David

David
> On 14 Mar 2015, at 3:06 am, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
> 
> Dear Jefsey:
> 
> You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts in the best interests of Internet end users.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> ALAC Vice Chair
> 
> On 11/03/2015 19:03, Jefsey wrote:
>> The ICG coordinates with 13 “communities”, which are:
>>  Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
>>  Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO and non-ccNSO Country Code Top-Level Domain [ccTLD] operators, as selected by the ccNSO)
>>  Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). GNSO seats from non-Registry representation
>>  Generic Top Level Domain Registries (gTLD Registries)
>>  Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
>>  International Chamber of Commerce/ Business Action to Support the Information Society (ICC/BASIS)
>>  Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
>>  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
>>  Internet Society (ISOC)
>>  Number Resource Organization (NRO)
>>  Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
>>  Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
>> None of them represent the directly affected largest party, i.e. the lead and end users and the civil society organizations. As a part of this large and open community, a pioneer of the international network, and a member of the Libre community, I considered that my best chance to get my position heard would be through the technical community open, collective, and balanced work.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ <http://www.igcaucus.org/>
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/c44f5930/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/c44f5930/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Sun Mar 22 04:26:04 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 09:26:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <E496EE98-8822-4B08-884D-C93CF6669409@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> <54FC8F4
  B.907090 1@wzb.eu> <0b3c01d059cf$24f2ab10$6ed80130$@gmail.com> <E496EE98-8822-4B08-884D-C93CF6669409@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <B969E0B2-4CE1-4779-BB6E-FE56DB5E2076@consensus.pro>

Dear David,

With respect to this statement, I would heavily qualify this. The USG is doing this in the specific ambit of WSIS-related constructs. I think we all know that when it comes to many areas of policy neither the USG, nor any other government, is interested in non-state actors necessarily even being in the room.

That said, one takes what one can. It is great, IMO, that they take this position where they do, as aside from anything else it makes it easier to argue “well, why not at ______ too?”

> On 22 Mar 2015, at 09:12, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
> The USG are not attempting to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from “democracy” to multistakeholderism. They are attempting to move the normative practical mechanism of international discourse from multi-lateralism to multi-stakeholderism, which is a very different thing.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/7f4f566c/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dave at difference.com.au  Sun Mar 22 04:33:56 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:33:56 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <B969E0B2-4CE1-4779-BB6E-FE56DB5E2076@consensus.pro>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> <54FC8F!
 4 B.90709
 0 1@wzb.eu> <0b3c01d059cf$24f2ab10$6ed80130$@gmail.com> <E496EE98-8822-4B08-884D-C93CF6669409@difference.com.au> <B969E0B2-4CE1-4779-BB6E-FE56DB5E2076@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <57A47F16-0B67-4AEE-B2B7-7B6CBE84FB02@difference.com.au>


> On 22 Mar 2015, at 4:26 pm, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> 
> Dear David,
> 
> With respect to this statement, I would heavily qualify this. The USG is doing this in the specific ambit of WSIS-related constructs. I think we all know that when it comes to many areas of policy neither the USG, nor any other government, is interested in non-state actors necessarily even being in the room.

	Absolutely. And of course the USG is not a unitary entity by any means, and is highly inconsistent in its support for multistakeholderism as a general principe. We simultaneously have NTIA and the Dept of Commerce pushing multistakeholderism, and the USTR pushing opaque, state only, processes through TTPA and TTIP, sometimes on the same issues.

> 
> That said, one takes what one can. It is great, IMO, that they take this position where they do, as aside from anything else it makes it easier to argue “well, why not at ______ too?”

	Indeed.

	David
> 
>> On 22 Mar 2015, at 09:12, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>> The USG are not attempting to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from “democracy” to multistakeholderism. They are attempting to move the normative practical mechanism of international discourse from multi-lateralism to multi-stakeholderism, which is a very different thing.
> 

-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/9a9060ed/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Sun Mar 22 04:51:15 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 09:51:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <57A47F16-0B67-4AEE-B2B7-7B6CBE84FB02@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> <54FC8F4
  B.90709 0 1@wzb.eu> <0b3c01d059cf$24f2ab10$6ed80130$@gmail.com> <E496EE98-8822-4B08-884D-C93CF6669409@difference.com.au> <B969E0B2-4CE1-4779-BB6E-FE56DB5E2076@consensus.pro> <57A47F16-0B67-4AEE-B2B7-7B6CBE84FB02@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <3021223B-4CEF-440C-8270-8E5AAFEC2DF6@consensus.pro>

Even more fun: The USG is simultaneously making proposals at the WTO on the free flow of information, openness, etc and this week, less than 2 kilometres away, leading the 5Is at the Human Rights Council to try and remove all references to the Internet from the resolution on the creation of a special rapporteur on privacy.

> On 22 Mar 2015, at 09:33, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 22 Mar 2015, at 4:26 pm, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear David,
>> 
>> With respect to this statement, I would heavily qualify this. The USG is doing this in the specific ambit of WSIS-related constructs. I think we all know that when it comes to many areas of policy neither the USG, nor any other government, is interested in non-state actors necessarily even being in the room.
> 
> 	Absolutely. And of course the USG is not a unitary entity by any means, and is highly inconsistent in its support for multistakeholderism as a general principe. We simultaneously have NTIA and the Dept of Commerce pushing multistakeholderism, and the USTR pushing opaque, state only, processes through TTPA and TTIP, sometimes on the same issues.
> 
>> 
>> That said, one takes what one can. It is great, IMO, that they take this position where they do, as aside from anything else it makes it easier to argue “well, why not at ______ too?”
> 
> 	Indeed.
> 
> 	David
>> 
>>> On 22 Mar 2015, at 09:12, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The USG are not attempting to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from “democracy” to multistakeholderism. They are attempting to move the normative practical mechanism of international discourse from multi-lateralism to multi-stakeholderism, which is a very different thing.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/66b7d69d/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Mar 22 09:55:56 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 06:55:56 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <E496EE98-8822-4B08-884D-C93CF6669409@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> <54FC8F4B.907090 1@wzb.eu> <0b
 3c01d059cf$24f2ab10$6ed80130$@gmail.com> <E496EE98-8822-4B08-884D-C93CF6669409@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <03c601d064a7$ebb77810$c3266830$@gmail.com>

David, 

It's great that you have a direct pipeline into the USG's thinking in these matters which gives you knowledge beyond what isn't visible to us mere mortals.  As well you seem to have some privileged insight into the deepest recesses of JNC thinking and understanding of such terms and practices as democracy.  Perhaps in the future you could write the JNC's side of these dialogues as well as the other side and all the rest of us could take some time off.

I think if you reread the previous hundred or so posts on this subject line the rest of your arguments will have already been addressed.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: March 22, 2015 1:13 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"


> On 9 Mar 2015, at 2:38 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For anyone who believes that the on-going effort by the USG and its corporate and other allies to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from "democracy" to multistakeholderism is simply "about  words", I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like you to take a look at and put offer on.

	The USG are not attempting to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from “democracy” to multistakeholderism. They are attempting to move the normative practical mechanism of international discourse from multi-lateralism to multi-stakeholderism, which is a very different thing. It is true that the USG has self-interested reasons for doing so - but the reasons are not particularly anti-democratic, the primary reason is because multi-lateral fora that work on the ‘1 nation 1 vote’ principle of the UN do not favour those nations that consider themselves strong democracies at this point. It is vital to not simply associate democracy with voting - 1 nation 1 vote is in no way a democratic principle.
	This seems to be one of the continuing issues that causes conflict between the JNC and civil society. Every time the JNC sees themselves as fighting to empower democracy by fighting multi-stakeholderism, most of the rest of us see the JNC as effectively fighting against democracy by attacking governance fora where democratic nations are strong (particularly via soft power means), and defending governance fora where un-democratic nations are strong.
	There is old ‘road to hell is paved with good intentions’ proverb. I have no doubt JNC has good intentions - but it appears to me they have a great deal of good intentioned bricks labelled ‘democracy’ and use them to pave the road to stronger influence for autocratic anti-democratic nations.

	Which isn’t to say that advocating for more democracy is bad in the least, but it needs to also serve to increase democratic outcomes.

	(sorry for reviving some old threads. Its been a busy couple of weeks)

	David
> 
> "Words"/concepts/norms translate into and consciously and unconsciously frame actions; provide the design parameters for operational mechanisms and institutions; and in a variety of other ways turn themselves into reality, often without our even being aware of those processes--that's the point of words.
> 
> Democracy representing "red lines" that countries like the US won't cross as per what was observed at the UNESCO meeting, and "multistakeholderism" (i.e. governance by self-selected and primarily corporate driven elites) being the widely pursued alternative is about a conscious strategy of changing the aspirational mechanisms of global governance, and not just in the Internet sphere.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette 
> Hofmann
> Sent: March 8, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and 
>> focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about 
>> with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half 
>> to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some 
>> people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were 
>> in the middle of that whole thing, no)?
> 
> Yes, I was, and I am proud of that.
> What I meant to say: Language games played an important role during the intergovernmental negotiation of the WSIS documents. Those with access to the working groups could marvel about these skillful diplomatic maneuvers that could only be deciphered by those who knew the historic subtext of certain wordings. Civil society did not engage in those plays with words. In endless meetings we discussed specific proposals, among them the merits of a new multi-stakeholder forum that would address internet governance issues.
> 
> Sometimes implicit but often enough very explicit, we fought for making the regulation of the Internet a more democratic endevaour. The multi-stakeholder concept was our entry ticket into the dialogue with governments but it was also our approach towards democratizing the global management of the internet.
> 
> Multi-stakeholder was never meant to be separate or even the opposite of democracy. On the contrary, it has been the attempt to expand the democratic idea, which clearly has been optimized and operationalized for the nation state and thus has not  much to offer for the global sphere. There is so much to do, there is so much to experiment and learn, in my view it is misguided to frame the current state of things as a binary choice between democracy and multi-stakeholderism. I don't see how one concept could thrive without the other in the Internet world.
> 
> Right now, it is an open and contested question among civil society groups what democracy on the global level means. Unless we agree on a set of basic principles, it may be impossible to use this term in official documents. Avoiding this term does not imply that any of us consider democracy less relevant than those who want to see it included.
> 
> Jeanette
> 
> Jeanette
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why this gratuitous advice that dont
>> mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word 
>> goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.
>> 
>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said 
>> at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of 
>> the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the 
>> document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There 
>> would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct 
>> question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people think and 
>> act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the 
>> issue here. An honest consideration of this other hypothetical 
>> situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if the MS word 
>> was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>> This discussion is bizarr.
>>> 
>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>> 
>>> Wolfgang
>>> 
>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding 
>>> and role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a 
>>> consensus on how to effectively operationalize democracy in the 
>>> context of the Internet something with which I (and the JNC) 
>>> completely agree and which we have been advocating for a long time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed 
>>> consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working 
>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to 
>>> the endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a 
>>> fundamental pillar of US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably 
>>> "we" could have sufficient comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for 
>>> multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates 
>>> acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context 
>>> and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) 
>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic 
>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as 
>>> an alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my 
>>> view still needs to be developed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to 
>>> include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept 
>>> supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in 
>>> the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the 
>>> UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the 
>>> concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware 
>>> that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at all.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these 
>>> discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values, 
>>> but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a 
>>> lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic 
>>> Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good 
>>> to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy 
>>> in the context of the internet among civil society and academia 
>>> first before forcing it into international documents.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < 
>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply 
>>>> a matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but 
>>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to 
>>>> promote "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>>> M
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> 
>>>> [<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>>> 
>>>> Klein
>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>>> To:<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang 
>>>> (<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>>>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting 
>>>>> the
>>>>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important 
>>>>> to put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was 
>>>>> to give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on 
>>>>> the future priorities in this field. This was done in several 
>>>>> plenary and
>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into 
>>>>> the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all 
>>>>> work in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or 
>>>>> only partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts 
>>>>> were elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any 
>>>>> significant way in order to deepen their understanding.
>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only 
>>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or 
>>>> only partly included."
>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar 
>>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would 
>>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, 
>>>> could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or 
>>>> only partially, included.
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Norbert Klein
>>>> Cambodia
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Mar 22 09:57:53 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 06:57:53 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net>
 <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <54FB76 8C.4030803@ap c .org>
 <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com> <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>

David thanks, I knew that at some point I’d have a chance to usefully toss in that old chestnut…

 

Churchill in the UK House of Commons 11 Novem­ber 1947 : Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: March 22, 2015 12:51 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

Sorry to jump into an old discussion thread, but 

On 8 Mar 2015, at 5:00 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:

[MG] sorry I’m not following this… If you are saying that Civil Society has already accomplished a great deal with respect to Internet Governance I would ask that you point to these specific accomplishments.  What I see is a more or less out of control dominance by the status quo with little policy advance to check the power of the elites who control that status quo in the crucial areas such as privacy, surveillance, resource (Internet based wealth) distribution, concentration of decision making power, increasing corporate control and so on… but maybe I’m missing something. 

 

            I think perhaps you are missing something. Perhaps what you are missing is that maintaining ‘the status quo’ (meaning keeping a relatively similar position with regards to rights, etc) is something we have to constantly fight for. And a commitment to ‘democracy’ is not the magic bullet that would win that fight - it is largely pressure from the governments, and particularly law enforcement agencies, of democratic nations that we are fighting against. 

            I know that a lot of us in the ICANN world go in to fight for privacy in particular every week. If it seems like the status quo isn’t changing, it is because we are pushing back as hard as we can against a constant push to decrease privacy (from both law enforcement and corporate groups such as intellectual property interests - but the internet industry itself, such registrars, are generally very strong on maintaining privacy). 

            And FWIW, as I’m sure you’ve seen - using democratic means to push back against the surveillance state has so far had very little effect. None of the 5 Eyes nations, democracies all, seem to have significantly reduced the power of the surveillance state since the Snowden revelations, and several (sadly, including my country, despite the lobbying campaign my organisation and others have run against it) have increased them. The only meaningful hope we have to reduce mass surveillance significantly in the short term so far comes from technical means, e.g. via the MS internet standards bodies like the IETF. This doesn’t mean we should stop trying to fight mass surveillance by democratic means, of course, but positing mass surveillance as a problem that can and will be solved by adding more democracy to transnational fora seems quite naive. 

 

Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.

 

[MG] Again I think it is important to distinguish between processes of consultation where multistakeholder along with other processes of participation and engagement are absolutely desirable and processes of decision making which require a degree of formality, structure, broad based accountability, inclusiveness, and transparency – none of which characterize Multistakeholder processes as currently constituted.

 

            Michael, I find that almost all of your criticisms of MS processes are clearly from the perspective of someone who has little experience in participating in them, and has sort of made up a version of what they are like in their head that can’t be moved. Almost all MS processes within ICANN, IETF, RIRs are very transparent (every meeting is open to anyone to listen to, transcripts and audio recordings are made available to the public, every participant has a public SOI, every major output is put out for a public comment period, etc.). Most have a fair degree of formality and structure, with very clearly defined processes documents available, and so on. 

            I do think inclusiveness is a constant struggle, but MS processes are, in general, inclusive by design in that they are open. It is true that simply wanting your processes to be inclusive is not enough, but still, it remains the fact that MS processes are open to participation by default, with no active gatekeeping to participation (though of course there are structural barriers to be overcome, and the efforts to overcome those barriers, while well meant, are not magic). This compares with many government processes that are actively gatekeepered. 

 

            And of course, there are processes like the WEF that are not open - and you’ll find most of those who you would claim to be MS advocates here treat those gated processes with great scepticism and do not regard them as being the same kind of process and do not advocate for their use. 

 

            Seriously Michael, come take a closer look at some of our actual MS policy processes. Maybe not participate directly (though if you are really committed to privacy etc, we have plenty of useful work for people to do), but at least follow some processes in real detail - listen to some calls, look at how our processes work. I’m sure you might still be critical of them afterwards, but your criticism would be more valuable if it was better informed. 

 

            David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/ecaef35e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Sun Mar 22 11:36:59 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 11:36:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Online Retransmission Consent and DMCA
 Liability Protections
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk1_7-B5Y30XKevkuhg1Lo0NNV9qBJBBDY8Po=MpgwDJUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFByO--PdiePhD82ArvCKbD=1e58zvLU3Gf4RGe1uL9kqeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFByP3NSq0Z9eooO4j7_H=t4mO-Xat9CcUks2onTb9-BsAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz9EsR7LS1g1SJ=MdeHA8YyqRM8z+O2ybPjhqQRUKMfkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBwcnK9GA-HFHGeWY7T5Tc5LBaDcT9VzC8TiN0T3_8szoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk1_7-B5Y30XKevkuhg1Lo0NNV9qBJBBDY8Po=MpgwDJUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx-x-C3M2=LepHDfUJxn3xR3ixLLOsSwMeE-5oYuQn1GQ@mail.gmail.com>

Right.  On the DMCA see the House Judiciary Committee in March of last year:
http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/3/section-512-of-title-17
http://judiciary.house.gov/_cache/files/22c3acda-551c-41ba-b330-8dd251dd15fd/113-86-87151.pdf

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
> Last Wednesday I video'd a Copyright Society lunchtime panel on the
> aftermath of aereo, which included the lead litigator in the Cablevision
> case.
>
> The current MVPD cases and the changing FCC landscape were only touched on
> tangentially and there was no mention of the DMCA at all that I can recall.
>
> I will post it early in the week.
>
> I also reprocessed the FCC budget hearing on Thursday but I haven;t indexed
> it yet. If you have any hot timecodes please feed them back or put them in
> the comments.
>
> https://youtu.be/sawGxJ8d2Kk
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> (*Sort of* US-centric, but still of note, for those either concerned
>> about the broadcaster's treaty or modalities of online
>> stewardship/governance)
>>
>> Hello all, at the following link you will find the FCC's NPRM for
>> establishing a "retransmission consent" regime online for a specific
>> class of online services called Multichannel Video Programming
>> Distributors. It addresses all services that make multiple linear
>> video programming streams available online on a subscription basis:
>> >
>> > https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/15/2014-30777/promoting-innovation-and-competition-in-the-provision-of-multichannel-video-programming-distribution
>>
>> It would establish the first formal exception to the broad protections
>> against copyright infringement liability provided to online service
>> providers under the DMCA's Notice and Takedown procedures -- and it is
>> being proposed by the FCC, not by Congress.
>>
>> In addition, I was informed in an email exchange a week before this
>> NPRM was initiated that the US sees retransmission consent as a basis
>> for the national implementation that would be required for the
>> Broadcaster's Treaty, a treaty proposing to establish a new
>> international layer of rights for broadcasters online that is not yet
>> formalized or ratified, but which has been regularly resurrected
>> despite ongoing opposition and concern voiced by many organizations.
>> With the national implementation already in place, treaty negotiators
>> could readily ratify and implement the Broadcaster's Treaty without
>> the domestic public and legislative debate that it warrants.  The FCC
>> makes no mention in this NPRM of this relationship between
>> establishing retransmission consent online under domestic law and the
>> Broadcaster's Treaty.
>>
>> Here's my submission, submitted on the final day of the Reply Comments
>> period (They were extended to this past Wednesday):
>> > http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001027037
>>
>> It encourages the FCC to recognize this as a proposition that should
>> be taken up through legislative channels that hold the power to
>> address, as a matter of copyright, the scope of the DMCA's liability
>> protections, and to be forthright about the implication of this
>> regulatory act serving as a national implementation, before the fact,
>> of the Broadcaster's Treaty.
>>
>> Most of you know that we not only rely on our telecommunications
>> environment to assure our ability to to freely enter the network of
>> networks, peer among ourselves and offer services online, but we also
>> benefit from protection from copyright liability which would otherwise
>> hamper our ability to make the most effective and valuable use of the
>> Internet's potential, as we act as intermediaries.  Otherwise we would
>> all become liable as soon as we open a port and run a server of nearly
>> any kind that involves users exchanging information.
>>
>> While the online safe harbor the DMCA created in 1998 might have
>> served to provide a space in which we could deliberate the types of
>> policies that are appropriate for the new medium, this is not how
>> things have developed.  It would seem to me to that now, when we are
>> in the midst of a process of contemplating a transition to new modes
>> of stewardship and governance for the Internet, that we should make
>> sure that actions like this don't occur without our making sure we
>> have the opportunity to address them properly.
>>
>> I encourage everyone to ask the FCC, the State Department, various
>> relevant agencies and Congress to open up the discourse on the full
>> implications of the proposal to establish retransmission consent on
>> the Internet.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Sun Mar 22 11:40:03 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 11:40:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Online Retransmission Consent and DMCA
 Liability Protections
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk3EVqBGbWP0HY93wPLc_KN=ZeX-ZvPHKRcSN895-QyKUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFByO--PdiePhD82ArvCKbD=1e58zvLU3Gf4RGe1uL9kqeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFByP3NSq0Z9eooO4j7_H=t4mO-Xat9CcUks2onTb9-BsAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz9EsR7LS1g1SJ=MdeHA8YyqRM8z+O2ybPjhqQRUKMfkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBwcnK9GA-HFHGeWY7T5Tc5LBaDcT9VzC8TiN0T3_8szoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM9VJk3EVqBGbWP0HY93wPLc_KN=ZeX-ZvPHKRcSN895-QyKUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBywh=KvjbQD1X4p_8GSwkL4-yP3eqgvb6+jL7k3S9Jhqg@mail.gmail.com>

Again, see the House Judiciary Committee in March of last year on the DMCA:
http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/3/section-512-of-title-17
http://judiciary.house.gov/_cache/files/22c3acda-551c-41ba-b330-8dd251dd15fd/113-86-87151.pdf

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
> Last Wednesday I video'd a Copyright Society lunchtime panel on the
> aftermath of aereo, which included the lead litigator in the Cablevision
> case.
>
> The current MVPD cases and the changing FCC landscape were only touched on
> tangentially and there was no mention of the DMCA at all that I can recall.
>
> I will post it early in the week.
>
> I also reprocessed the FCC budget hearing on Thursday but I haven;t indexed
> it yet. If you have any hot timecodes please feed them back or put them in
> the comments.
>
> https://youtu.be/sawGxJ8d2Kk
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> (*Sort of* US-centric, but still of note, for those either concerned
>> about the broadcaster's treaty or modalities of online
>> stewardship/governance)
>>
>> Hello all, at the following link you will find the FCC's NPRM for
>> establishing a "retransmission consent" regime online for a specific
>> class of online services called Multichannel Video Programming
>> Distributors. It addresses all services that make multiple linear
>> video programming streams available online on a subscription basis:
>> >
>> > https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/15/2014-30777/promoting-innovation-and-competition-in-the-provision-of-multichannel-video-programming-distribution
>>
>> It would establish the first formal exception to the broad protections
>> against copyright infringement liability provided to online service
>> providers under the DMCA's Notice and Takedown procedures -- and it is
>> being proposed by the FCC, not by Congress.
>>
>> In addition, I was informed in an email exchange a week before this
>> NPRM was initiated that the US sees retransmission consent as a basis
>> for the national implementation that would be required for the
>> Broadcaster's Treaty, a treaty proposing to establish a new
>> international layer of rights for broadcasters online that is not yet
>> formalized or ratified, but which has been regularly resurrected
>> despite ongoing opposition and concern voiced by many organizations.
>> With the national implementation already in place, treaty negotiators
>> could readily ratify and implement the Broadcaster's Treaty without
>> the domestic public and legislative debate that it warrants.  The FCC
>> makes no mention in this NPRM of this relationship between
>> establishing retransmission consent online under domestic law and the
>> Broadcaster's Treaty.
>>
>> Here's my submission, submitted on the final day of the Reply Comments
>> period (They were extended to this past Wednesday):
>> > http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001027037
>>
>> It encourages the FCC to recognize this as a proposition that should
>> be taken up through legislative channels that hold the power to
>> address, as a matter of copyright, the scope of the DMCA's liability
>> protections, and to be forthright about the implication of this
>> regulatory act serving as a national implementation, before the fact,
>> of the Broadcaster's Treaty.
>>
>> Most of you know that we not only rely on our telecommunications
>> environment to assure our ability to to freely enter the network of
>> networks, peer among ourselves and offer services online, but we also
>> benefit from protection from copyright liability which would otherwise
>> hamper our ability to make the most effective and valuable use of the
>> Internet's potential, as we act as intermediaries.  Otherwise we would
>> all become liable as soon as we open a port and run a server of nearly
>> any kind that involves users exchanging information.
>>
>> While the online safe harbor the DMCA created in 1998 might have
>> served to provide a space in which we could deliberate the types of
>> policies that are appropriate for the new medium, this is not how
>> things have developed.  It would seem to me to that now, when we are
>> in the midst of a process of contemplating a transition to new modes
>> of stewardship and governance for the Internet, that we should make
>> sure that actions like this don't occur without our making sure we
>> have the opportunity to address them properly.
>>
>> I encourage everyone to ask the FCC, the State Department, various
>> relevant agencies and Congress to open up the discourse on the full
>> implications of the proposal to establish retransmission consent on
>> the Internet.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Sun Mar 22 13:22:06 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:22:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
 the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <54FB76 8C.4030803@ap c .org> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com> <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>


Hola Micheal

You referenced Churchill. So I will do it also.

“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the 
manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time…I do not 
admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians 
of America, or the black people of Australia…I do not think the Red 
Indians had any right to say, ‘The American Continent belongs to us and 
we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here’. 
They had not the right, nor had they the power.”

Winston S. Churchill to the Peel Commission on Palestine
12th March 1937.

Britain’s denial of democracy and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/britain%E2%80%99s-denial-of-democracy-and-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine


And, what we can see? Winston Churchill was a racist and therefore a 
facist. And never a democrat.

And David? I think, he understand, that democracy  have nothing to do 
with voting. It have to do with self-deciding, self-determination.

And in the internet? Only, if we control the technical infrastructures, 
if we define the technology, than and only than we can control the 
structures of our internet.

Only simple theater does not help there.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia



Am 22/03/2015 um 09:57 a.m. schrieb Michael Gurstein:
> David thanks, I knew that at some point I’d have a chance to usefully toss in that old chestnut…
>
> Churchill in the UK House of Commons 11 Novem­ber 1947 : Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: March 22, 2015 12:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>
>
> Sorry to jump into an old discussion thread, but
>
> On 8 Mar 2015, at 5:00 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> [MG] sorry I’m not following this… If you are saying that Civil Society has already accomplished a great deal with respect to Internet Governance I would ask that you point to these specific accomplishments.  What I see is a more or less out of control dominance by the status quo with little policy advance to check the power of the elites who control that status quo in the crucial areas such as privacy, surveillance, resource (Internet based wealth) distribution, concentration of decision making power, increasing corporate control and so on… but maybe I’m missing something.
>
>
>
>              I think perhaps you are missing something. Perhaps what you are missing is that maintaining ‘the status quo’ (meaning keeping a relatively similar position with regards to rights, etc) is something we have to constantly fight for. And a commitment to ‘democracy’ is not the magic bullet that would win that fight - it is largely pressure from the governments, and particularly law enforcement agencies, of democratic nations that we are fighting against.
>
>              I know that a lot of us in the ICANN world go in to fight for privacy in particular every week. If it seems like the status quo isn’t changing, it is because we are pushing back as hard as we can against a constant push to decrease privacy (from both law enforcement and corporate groups such as intellectual property interests - but the internet industry itself, such registrars, are generally very strong on maintaining privacy).
>
>              And FWIW, as I’m sure you’ve seen - using democratic means to push back against the surveillance state has so far had very little effect. None of the 5 Eyes nations, democracies all, seem to have significantly reduced the power of the surveillance state since the Snowden revelations, and several (sadly, including my country, despite the lobbying campaign my organisation and others have run against it) have increased them. The only meaningful hope we have to reduce mass surveillance significantly in the short term so far comes from technical means, e.g. via the MS internet standards bodies like the IETF. This doesn’t mean we should stop trying to fight mass surveillance by democratic means, of course, but positing mass surveillance as a problem that can and will be solved by adding more democracy to transnational fora seems quite naive.
>
>
>
> Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.
>
>
>
> [MG] Again I think it is important to distinguish between processes of consultation where multistakeholder along with other processes of participation and engagement are absolutely desirable and processes of decision making which require a degree of formality, structure, broad based accountability, inclusiveness, and transparency – none of which characterize Multistakeholder processes as currently constituted.
>
>
>
>              Michael, I find that almost all of your criticisms of MS processes are clearly from the perspective of someone who has little experience in participating in them, and has sort of made up a version of what they are like in their head that can’t be moved. Almost all MS processes within ICANN, IETF, RIRs are very transparent (every meeting is open to anyone to listen to, transcripts and audio recordings are made available to the public, every participant has a public SOI, every major output is put out for a public comment period, etc.). Most have a fair degree of formality and structure, with very clearly defined processes documents available, and so on.
>
>              I do think inclusiveness is a constant struggle, but MS processes are, in general, inclusive by design in that they are open. It is true that simply wanting your processes to be inclusive is not enough, but still, it remains the fact that MS processes are open to participation by default, with no active gatekeeping to participation (though of course there are structural barriers to be overcome, and the efforts to overcome those barriers, while well meant, are not magic). This compares with many government processes that are actively gatekeepered.
>
>
>
>              And of course, there are processes like the WEF that are not open - and you’ll find most of those who you would claim to be MS advocates here treat those gated processes with great scepticism and do not regard them as being the same kind of process and do not advocate for their use.
>
>
>
>              Seriously Michael, come take a closer look at some of our actual MS policy processes. Maybe not participate directly (though if you are really committed to privacy etc, we have plenty of useful work for people to do), but at least follow some processes in real detail - listen to some calls, look at how our processes work. I’m sure you might still be critical of them afterwards, but your criticism would be more valuable if it was better informed.
>
>
>
>              David
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 22 13:46:58 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:46:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
 "Connecting the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <54FB76 8C.4030803@ap c .org> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com> <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com> <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.!
 com>
Message-ID: <057e01d064c8$3247fdc0$96d7f940$@gmail.com>

Yes, you are right Willi, I should have prefaced my comments with something like "Even Churchill said that...

M


-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of willi uebelherr
Sent: March 22, 2015 10:22 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"


Hola Micheal

You referenced Churchill. So I will do it also.

“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time…I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia…I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, ‘The American Continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here’. 
They had not the right, nor had they the power.”

Winston S. Churchill to the Peel Commission on Palestine 12th March 1937.

Britain’s denial of democracy and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/britain%E2%80%99s-denial-of-democracy-and-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine


And, what we can see? Winston Churchill was a racist and therefore a facist. And never a democrat.

And David? I think, he understand, that democracy  have nothing to do with voting. It have to do with self-deciding, self-determination.

And in the internet? Only, if we control the technical infrastructures, if we define the technology, than and only than we can control the structures of our internet.

Only simple theater does not help there.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia



Am 22/03/2015 um 09:57 a.m. schrieb Michael Gurstein:
> David thanks, I knew that at some point I’d have a chance to usefully 
> toss in that old chestnut…
>
> Churchill in the UK House of Commons 11 Novem­ber 1947 : Many forms of 
> Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin 
> and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. 
> Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of 
> Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried 
> from time to time.…
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: March 22, 2015 12:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>
>
> Sorry to jump into an old discussion thread, but
>
> On 8 Mar 2015, at 5:00 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> [MG] sorry I’m not following this… If you are saying that Civil Society has already accomplished a great deal with respect to Internet Governance I would ask that you point to these specific accomplishments.  What I see is a more or less out of control dominance by the status quo with little policy advance to check the power of the elites who control that status quo in the crucial areas such as privacy, surveillance, resource (Internet based wealth) distribution, concentration of decision making power, increasing corporate control and so on… but maybe I’m missing something.
>
>
>
>              I think perhaps you are missing something. Perhaps what you are missing is that maintaining ‘the status quo’ (meaning keeping a relatively similar position with regards to rights, etc) is something we have to constantly fight for. And a commitment to ‘democracy’ is not the magic bullet that would win that fight - it is largely pressure from the governments, and particularly law enforcement agencies, of democratic nations that we are fighting against.
>
>              I know that a lot of us in the ICANN world go in to fight for privacy in particular every week. If it seems like the status quo isn’t changing, it is because we are pushing back as hard as we can against a constant push to decrease privacy (from both law enforcement and corporate groups such as intellectual property interests - but the internet industry itself, such registrars, are generally very strong on maintaining privacy).
>
>              And FWIW, as I’m sure you’ve seen - using democratic means to push back against the surveillance state has so far had very little effect. None of the 5 Eyes nations, democracies all, seem to have significantly reduced the power of the surveillance state since the Snowden revelations, and several (sadly, including my country, despite the lobbying campaign my organisation and others have run against it) have increased them. The only meaningful hope we have to reduce mass surveillance significantly in the short term so far comes from technical means, e.g. via the MS internet standards bodies like the IETF. This doesn’t mean we should stop trying to fight mass surveillance by democratic means, of course, but positing mass surveillance as a problem that can and will be solved by adding more democracy to transnational fora seems quite naive.
>
>
>
> Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.
>
>
>
> [MG] Again I think it is important to distinguish between processes of consultation where multistakeholder along with other processes of participation and engagement are absolutely desirable and processes of decision making which require a degree of formality, structure, broad based accountability, inclusiveness, and transparency – none of which characterize Multistakeholder processes as currently constituted.
>
>
>
>              Michael, I find that almost all of your criticisms of MS processes are clearly from the perspective of someone who has little experience in participating in them, and has sort of made up a version of what they are like in their head that can’t be moved. Almost all MS processes within ICANN, IETF, RIRs are very transparent (every meeting is open to anyone to listen to, transcripts and audio recordings are made available to the public, every participant has a public SOI, every major output is put out for a public comment period, etc.). Most have a fair degree of formality and structure, with very clearly defined processes documents available, and so on.
>
>              I do think inclusiveness is a constant struggle, but MS processes are, in general, inclusive by design in that they are open. It is true that simply wanting your processes to be inclusive is not enough, but still, it remains the fact that MS processes are open to participation by default, with no active gatekeeping to participation (though of course there are structural barriers to be overcome, and the efforts to overcome those barriers, while well meant, are not magic). This compares with many government processes that are actively gatekeepered.
>
>
>
>              And of course, there are processes like the WEF that are not open - and you’ll find most of those who you would claim to be MS advocates here treat those gated processes with great scepticism and do not regard them as being the same kind of process and do not advocate for their use.
>
>
>
>              Seriously Michael, come take a closer look at some of our actual MS policy processes. Maybe not participate directly (though if you are really committed to privacy etc, we have plenty of useful work for people to do), but at least follow some processes in real detail - listen to some calls, look at how our processes work. I’m sure you might still be critical of them afterwards, but your criticism would be more valuable if it was better informed.
>
>
>
>              David
>


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun Mar 22 22:26:58 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:26:58 +0800
Subject: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
 the Dots Conference"
In-Reply-To: <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <54FB76 8C.4030803@ap c .org> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com> <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com> <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.!
 com>
Message-ID: <CEAC619C-02FA-448A-8E2C-71D0027DFD7C@difference.com.au>


> On 23 Mar 2015, at 1:22 am, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> And David? I think, he understand, that democracy  have nothing to do with voting. It have to do with self-deciding, self-determination.

	Yes. Voting is the greatest  tool of democracy. But the tool is not the goal. And like all tools, it can be used for other purposes, and often is.
	And there are times when voting is inappropriate, and democracy must use other tools. Modern liberal democracy relies on many other mechanisms, such as the courts, transparency rules, a free press, etc, in balance with voting mechanisms.
	Multi-stakeholder policy development is another tool, one that can be used in service of democratic goals or otherwise. Positing MS policy processes as anti-democractic is unhelpful, and gets in the way of more useful, substantial, discussions (such as when are MS processes useful? How can we ensure they serve democratic goals? What are our real barriers to democratic processes?)

> And in the internet? Only, if we control the technical infrastructures, if we define the technology, than and only than we can control the structures of our internet.

	Yes, control of the technology is vital. Our best chance to fight back against mass surveillance is because we control the technology, and there are many other ways in which the nature of Internet technology, especially its decentralised nature, makes it useful for democratic goals.

	Regards

		David
> 
> Only simple theater does not help there.
> 
> many greetings, williN
>> 
>> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
>> Sent: March 22, 2015 12:51 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry to jump into an old discussion thread, but
>> 
>> On 8 Mar 2015, at 5:00 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:
>> 
>> [MG] sorry I’m not following this… If you are saying that Civil Society has already accomplished a great deal with respect to Internet Governance I would ask that you point to these specific accomplishments.  What I see is a more or less out of control dominance by the status quo with little policy advance to check the power of the elites who control that status quo in the crucial areas such as privacy, surveillance, resource (Internet based wealth) distribution, concentration of decision making power, increasing corporate control and so on… but maybe I’m missing something.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>             I think perhaps you are missing something. Perhaps what you are missing is that maintaining ‘the status quo’ (meaning keeping a relatively similar position with regards to rights, etc) is something we have to constantly fight for. And a commitment to ‘democracy’ is not the magic bullet that would win that fight - it is largely pressure from the governments, and particularly law enforcement agencies, of democratic nations that we are fighting against.
>> 
>>             I know that a lot of us in the ICANN world go in to fight for privacy in particular every week. If it seems like the status quo isn’t changing, it is because we are pushing back as hard as we can against a constant push to decrease privacy (from both law enforcement and corporate groups such as intellectual property interests - but the internet industry itself, such registrars, are generally very strong on maintaining privacy).
>> 
>>             And FWIW, as I’m sure you’ve seen - using democratic means to push back against the surveillance state has so far had very little effect. None of the 5 Eyes nations, democracies all, seem to have significantly reduced the power of the surveillance state since the Snowden revelations, and several (sadly, including my country, despite the lobbying campaign my organisation and others have run against it) have increased them. The only meaningful hope we have to reduce mass surveillance significantly in the short term so far comes from technical means, e.g. via the MS internet standards bodies like the IETF. This doesn’t mean we should stop trying to fight mass surveillance by democratic means, of course, but positing mass surveillance as a problem that can and will be solved by adding more democracy to transnational fora seems quite naive.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [MG] Again I think it is important to distinguish between processes of consultation where multistakeholder along with other processes of participation and engagement are absolutely desirable and processes of decision making which require a degree of formality, structure, broad based accountability, inclusiveness, and transparency – none of which characterize Multistakeholder processes as currently constituted.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>             Michael, I find that almost all of your criticisms of MS processes are clearly from the perspective of someone who has little experience in participating in them, and has sort of made up a version of what they are like in their head that can’t be moved. Almost all MS processes within ICANN, IETF, RIRs are very transparent (every meeting is open to anyone to listen to, transcripts and audio recordings are made available to the public, every participant has a public SOI, every major output is put out for a public comment period, etc.). Most have a fair degree of formality and structure, with very clearly defined processes documents available, and so on.
>> 
>>             I do think inclusiveness is a constant struggle, but MS processes are, in general, inclusive by design in that they are open. It is true that simply wanting your processes to be inclusive is not enough, but still, it remains the fact that MS processes are open to participation by default, with no active gatekeeping to participation (though of course there are structural barriers to be overcome, and the efforts to overcome those barriers, while well meant, are not magic). This compares with many government processes that are actively gatekeepered.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>             And of course, there are processes like the WEF that are not open - and you’ll find most of those who you would claim to be MS advocates here treat those gated processes with great scepticism and do not regard them as being the same kind of process and do not advocate for their use.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>             Seriously Michael, come take a closer look at some of our actual MS policy processes. Maybe not participate directly (though if you are really committed to privacy etc, we have plenty of useful work for people to do), but at least follow some processes in real detail - listen to some calls, look at how our processes work. I’m sure you might still be critical of them afterwards, but your criticism would be more valuable if it was better informed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>             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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/1b575e67/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 08:01:16 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:01:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Chlebrum message - URGENT
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4tMMxEcGcidwCApKO24gEzKDS2QhBQGUsag4F6a-FgdQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues,
Please delete the message purporting to come from Chantal containing a
Dropbox link.
It is malware.
Thanks
Deirdre
Co-coordinator IGC

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/eda33db5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bemaroa at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 09:23:28 2015
From: bemaroa at gmail.com (bemaroa .)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:23:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] Chlebrum message - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4tMMxEcGcidwCApKO24gEzKDS2QhBQGUsag4F6a-FgdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN4tMMxEcGcidwCApKO24gEzKDS2QhBQGUsag4F6a-FgdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANzQyEJK2Nk3TmjNBL2sQafW2uWRqOZ4M7+bdQXdaug0EiJuDw@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, thanks Deirdre

Regards, Beatriz

2015-03-23 9:01 GMT-03:00 Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>:

> Dear Colleagues,
> Please delete the message purporting to come from Chantal containing a
> Dropbox link.
> It is malware.
> Thanks
> Deirdre
> Co-coordinator IGC
>
> --
> “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
>
>


-- 
Beatriz
Montevideo-Uruguay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/ff1eb4ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Mar 23 10:42:20 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:42:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
References:  <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
 <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
 <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
 <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com> <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
 <"CEA C619C-02FA-448A-8E2C-71D0027DFD7C"@difference.com.au>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human Rights Council.

https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe

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 remmyn at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 11:15:31 2015
From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:15:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] Chlebrum message - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4tMMxEcGcidwCApKO24gEzKDS2QhBQGUsag4F6a-FgdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMz5XN4tMMxEcGcidwCApKO24gEzKDS2QhBQGUsag4F6a-FgdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMc__ooezekt24q5JeRp3kVuSQ-gt4ouuOzUjgxaBJWRvUG5AQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks DD

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> Please delete the message purporting to come from Chantal containing a
> Dropbox link.
> It is malware.
> Thanks
> Deirdre
> Co-coordinator IGC
>
> --
> "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
>
>


-- 
____
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 <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
[Member, NIRA Executive Board]
Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
<https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria>
NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2015 <
http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 4
Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2015 <http://www.ipv6forumnigeria.com.ng
<http://www.ipv6forumnigeria.ng>> - June 5
@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/ed1bc21d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 12:03:24 2015
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 04:03:24 +1200
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
	<54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
	<04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
	<54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
	<092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
	<54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
	<057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
	<982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
	<03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
	<550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCfgHO18X=+zeDznjz+bPSuaRgOtzT6XrhH8dhr7=p1uA@mail.gmail.com>

+1
On 23/03/2015 9:44 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> Rights Council.
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150324/ce0ec568/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bommelaer at isoc.org  Mon Mar 23 12:31:37 2015
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:31:37 +0000
Subject: [governance] ISOC IG Survey Report Now Available
In-Reply-To: <1427124979410.84123@isoc.org>
References: <1427124979410.84123@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <1427128303030.59708@isoc.org>


Dear Colleagues,



Over 800 people took a few minutes of their time to participate to a survey on Internet governance<http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/internet-governance-survey-2015> conducted by The Internet Society (ISOC) in February. The objective of the survey was to primarily ask the Internet community how we can strengthen mechanisms of the Internet governance ecosystem to better address policy challenges in 2015.



It was also designed to help ISOC contribute to current discussions on the evolution of the ecosystem (see ISOC's Internet governance timeline<http://www.internetsociety.org/igtimeline/>). Some of the issues include: preparations for WSIS+10; the future of the IGF; the appropriate role of new platforms like the NETmundial Initiative (NMI); and enabling a successful IANA stewardship transition.



The <http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Internet%20Governance%20Survey%202015.pdf> results of the survey are now available online<http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/internet-governance-survey-2015>, as well as a summary of the main takeaways<http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/internet-governance-survey-2015>. For additional background, I also encourage you to read this blog post<http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/03/internet-governance-survey-what-you-told-us>.


Many thanks for all the contributions received.



Best regards,



Constance Bommelaer

Senior Director, Global Internet Policy

The Internet Society

www.isoc.org<http://www.isoc.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/ea5d114c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Mon Mar 23 13:06:38 2015
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:06:38 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
 <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
 <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
 <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
 <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com> <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
 <"CEA C619C-02FA-448A-8E2C-71D0027DFD7C"@difference.com.au>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>

+1 Wolfgang Benedek

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 15:42
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; willi uebelherr
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Betreff: [governance] HRC in Geneva

I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human Rights Council.

https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe

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 admin at alkasir.com  Mon Mar 23 13:14:10 2015
From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:14:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
	<54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
	<04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
	<54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
	<092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
	<54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
	<057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
	<982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
	<03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
	<550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <CAKJSUiyXCA18yOgQNwC9h3GTNpUr=i-zPnQZiX0NuUWrGnKMbQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1

The statement has my full support!

Sincerely,

Walid

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

Walid Al-Saqaf
Founder & Administrator
alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship
https://alkasir.com <walid.al-saqaf at oru.se>

PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (
wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:

> +1 Wolfgang Benedek
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang"
> Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 15:42
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; willi uebelherr
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: [governance] HRC in Geneva
>
> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> Rights Council.
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/2fa15d0e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dmiloshevic at afilias.info  Mon Mar 23 13:30:59 2015
From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:30:59 +0000
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
 <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
 <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <"CEA C619C-02FA-448A-8E2C-71D0027DFD7C"@difference.com.au>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <D30981C4-D35F-49A4-AC69-1529584D8F4B@afilias.info>

+1

also in progress: 
https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Updated%20support%20on%20SR%20on%20privacy.pdf

Desiree
--
On 23 Mar 2015, at 17:06, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:

> +1 Wolfgang Benedek
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 15:42
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; willi uebelherr
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: [governance] HRC in Geneva
> 
> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human Rights Council.
> 
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
> 
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/97e26f2a/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Mar 23 14:21:37 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:21:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <CAKJSUiyXCA18yOgQNwC9h3GTNpUr=i-zPnQZiX0NuUWrGnKMbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>	<057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>	<982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>	<03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>	<550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> <CAKJSUiyXCA18yOgQNwC9h3GTNpUr=i-zPnQZiX0NuUWrGnKMbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <551059B1.9040003@apc.org>

Great to see this support everyone.  The resolution is up on Thursday
and Friday, so if IGC can decide by tomorrow that would be really good.

Do note that this is not really an APC statement, but a statement that
was drafted jointly by several other organisations.

Anriette


On 23/03/2015 19:14, Walid Al-Saqaf wrote:
> +1
> 
> The statement has my full support!
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Walid
> 
> -----------------
> 
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> Founder & Administrator
> alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship
> https://alkasir.com <walid.al-saqaf at oru.se>
> 
> PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt
> 
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> 
>> +1 Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter,
>> Wolfgang"
>> Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 15:42
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake;
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; willi uebelherr
>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Betreff: [governance] HRC in Geneva
>>
>> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
>> Rights Council.
>>
>>
>> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Mar 23 15:01:15 2015
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:01:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com> <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com> <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <"CEA C619C-02FA-448A-8E2C-71D0027DFD7C"@difference.com.au> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-hal!
 le.de>
Message-ID: <551062FB.4060009@mail.utoronto.ca>

+1 Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-03-23 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human Rights Council.
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/1f2c945b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 19:32:10 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:32:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
 <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
 <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5M3KFVgUJ2s4yt-nV9y+kf80nfxfP5v0_pWQp+u55-xg@mail.gmail.com>

So far Wolfgang's proposal
 "that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human Rights
Council.

https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
"
has 100% approval.
However the IGC Charter requires a 48 hour discussion period.
Please therefore indicate your opinion up to 23.59GMT on Wednesday 25th
March 2015.

Thank you
Analia and Deirdre
Co-coordinators IGC

On 23 March 2015 at 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> Rights Council.
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/01e927d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 19:48:21 2015
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:48:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
	<54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
	<04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
	<54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
	<092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
	<54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
	<057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
	<982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
	<03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
	<550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPFU9D5h_Q+x7=EQvFnjm1sFC-hLDGt=fPk8qpAL286xXQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1

On Monday, March 23, 2015, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
<wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> +1 Wolfgang Benedek
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
> Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 15:42
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org; willi uebelherr
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: [governance] HRC in Geneva
>
> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
Rights Council.
>
>
https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>

-- 
WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/c0e71a5c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 19:55:44 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:55:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
 <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
 <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6cd91z2ztQ+5ZuX4s78tjxWDPT-rJurzsmmS1BnP8pmw@mail.gmail.com>

I support Wolfgang's proposal
Deirdre

On 23 March 2015 at 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> Rights Council.
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/84ab6d1b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 20:18:21 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:18:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Important information for IGF2015
 workshop proposers
In-Reply-To: <CANS7ybEHvSSsGkRfk=p_gkK6BEWqT-h98YDjv1U3Bz7NS6wGaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANS7ybEHvSSsGkRfk=p_gkK6BEWqT-h98YDjv1U3Bz7NS6wGaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4X_XkkHeb+12ghU6AJ3a1eJQKsSQtX5PMi9TTNU+=2Hg@mail.gmail.com>

For your information.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates>
Date: 23 March 2015 at 19:14
Subject: [bestbits] Important information for IGF2015 workshop proposers
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net


Dear colleagues,

As many of you are aware, the deadline for IGF2015 workshop proposals is
fast approaching (30 March).

I see that Lea shared the MAG's *Call for Proposals
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/considerations-for-workshop-proposers#considerations-for-workshop-proposers>*
document
a week or so ago, and I write as a follow-up. Mindful that there have been
a number of changes that proposers may not be aware of, I write to ensure
that everyone is on notice of these changes so that there are no last
minute surprises.

For instance, panel sessions *require* a background paper this year, while
different session formats (for example debate, birds of a feather, etc.) do
not. Rapporteurs for each session are also required, and fully-thought out
remote participation plans will be well-received. All of this information
is contained within the *Call* (excerpt provided below) but, understanding
that we are all very busy, I wanted to be sure to point these things out
expressly.

Unofficial translations for this information in Arabic, Chinese, French,
Hindi, Japanese, Russian and Spanish are available here:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/considerations-for-workshop-proposers#unofficial-translations

Please do share this information widely with your respective networks.

Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I am happy to help.

Sincere regards,
Susan



Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates

*CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

*10 things for IGF workshop proposers to consider*

1.    Use a new session format. The MAG will be looking for proposals that
use new and innovative formats to encourage greater diversity and
participant interaction. Break-out group discussions, debates, roundtables,
birds of a feather, and flash sessions are all options this year for
workshop sessions. You could also propose your own format for the session.
These six formats exist in addition to the traditional panel format, a
proposal for which requires a background paper (see number 7).

2.    Submit a proposal even if you have never been to an IGF. During the
evaluation process, preference is given to first-time workshop proposers,
in an effort to welcome new voices to the IGF discussions.

3.    Attention to proposers from developing countries, including least
developed countries: Preference is given to proposals from your areas, to
encourage greater diversity at the IGF event.

4.    Be clear about why the session should happen and how it will happen.
It is important to be clear on what Internet Governance issue the session
will address and how this will be discussed.
        o    Why: In your proposal, give a concise description of the
Internet Governance issue that your session is designed to explore.
        o    How: Then explain how the issue will be addressed through the
session format. For example, if the session is a debate on the “right to be
forgotten” explain what aspect of the issue will be discussed, the major
discussions points, and the perspectives to be covered. In addition,
provide the agenda of the debate, including timings for debaters, moderator
and audience.

5.    Choose the length of your session wisely. Workshop Sessions are
either 30, 60 or 90 minutes long. Pick the amount of time that is best for
your session. For example, if you wish to give a brief presentation on a
topic, the 30 minute Flash Session would be a good duration and format.
Panel sessions require longer times. Note that different formats have
different durations. Check the formats here
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/session-format-outline-2015>
.

6.    Plan for remote participation: The IGF is a global discussion, and
those who are not “on location” also need to be able to participate. This
year the MAG will pay special attention to the proposer’s plan for remote
participation, so ensure that you have considered how to accommodate remote
participants and that you have nominated a remote moderator in your
proposal. You could even check to see if a “remote participation hub” is
being planned by members of the Internet community in your locality or
region, and work with them.

7.    Background papers are required for panel sessions, optional for
others. The MAG has introduced a requirement this year for proposals in the
panel format. Panel session proposals must include a background paper.
Check the guidelines for this paper here
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/igf-2015-format-of-background-paper-for-panel-sessions>
.

8.    Assign a rapporteur. All workshop sessions this year require a
rapporteur to produce a summary report of the session (based on this
template
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/igf-2015-reporting-template-for-workshop-sessions>).
Reports must be submitted to the IGF Secretariat no later than two weeks
following the IGF event. If a report is not submitted, then the workshop
proposer will not be allowed to submit a workshop proposal for the next IGF.

9.    Participants/Speakers need not be confirmed in the proposal. The MAG
understands that it is difficult to ask workshop session participants to
confirm their attendance to the IGF at the proposal stage, so confirmation
is not required. What is more important is a description of the part each
participant/speaker is meant to play in the workshop (e.g. one speaker will
share technical expertise on the issue, while another speaker will address
the economic considerations of the issue).

10.    Reach out if you need help. Please contact the secretariat of the
IGF at <igf[at]unog.ch> <igf at unog.ch> if you have questions about
submitting a proposal.

Finally, remember that you don’t need to organize or participate in a
workshop to participate in the IGF. All stakeholders are welcome to join
the meeting in Brazil. All relevant information can be found at
http://www.intgovforum.org/ <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/> .

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/98a1ffe9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Mon Mar 23 23:25:24 2015
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:25:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
	<54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
	<04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
	<54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
	<092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
	<54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
	<057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
	<982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
	<03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
	<550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CADVv0CKLV+d7WXy+BADyTXQmrfOcjBrTGzDOOYCYe9zo9Gu8FA@mail.gmail.com>

I agree.
On 23 Mar 2015 10:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> Rights Council.
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/0b2bc6b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dafalla at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 24 02:27:36 2015
From: dafalla at yahoo.com (dafalla at yahoo.com)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:27:36 -0700
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <CADVv0CKLV+d7WXy+BADyTXQmrfOcjBrTGzDOOYCYe9zo9Gu8FA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1427178456.14370.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web160104.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>


I gree

Thanks

Hago Dafalla

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150323/64b7c2d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nhklein at gmx.net  Tue Mar 24 03:49:41 2015
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:49:41 +0700
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <551059B1.9040003@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>	<057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>	<982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>	<03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>	<550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> <CAKJSUiyXCA18yOgQNwC9h3GTNpUr=i-zPnQZiX0NuUWrGnKMbQ@mail.gmail.com> <551059B1.9040003@apc.org>
Message-ID: <55111715.3060704@gmx.net>

+1 for Wolfgang's draft and the proposed further handling.

Norbert Klein
Cambodia

On 03/24/2015 01:21 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Great to see this support everyone.  The resolution is up on Thursday
> and Friday, so if IGC can decide by tomorrow that would be really good.
>
> Do note that this is not really an APC statement, but a statement that
> was drafted jointly by several other organisations.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 23/03/2015 19:14, Walid Al-Saqaf wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> The statement has my full support!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Walid
>>
>> -----------------
>>
>> Walid Al-Saqaf
>> Founder & Administrator
>> alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship
>> https://alkasir.com <walid.al-saqaf at oru.se>
>>
>> PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (
>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter,
>>> Wolfgang"
>>> Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 15:42
>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake;
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; willi uebelherr
>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Betreff: [governance] HRC in Geneva
>>>
>>> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
>>> Rights Council.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150324/f55be400/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com  Tue Mar 24 04:26:19 2015
From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:26:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <55111715.3060704@gmx.net>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
	<057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
	<982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
	<03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
	<550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C039B46E827@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>
	<CAKJSUiyXCA18yOgQNwC9h3GTNpUr=i-zPnQZiX0NuUWrGnKMbQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<551059B1.9040003@apc.org>
	<55111715.3060704@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <CALjW9_k=_0wwJbfYEr0TUyTVJRrU2DK1FBg+5QgpR+tNEWqLSg@mail.gmail.com>

+1 Matthias C. Kettemann

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:

>  +1 for Wolfgang's draft and the proposed further handling.
>
> Norbert Klein
> Cambodia
>
>
> On 03/24/2015 01:21 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> Great to see this support everyone.  The resolution is up on Thursday
> and Friday, so if IGC can decide by tomorrow that would be really good.
>
> Do note that this is not really an APC statement, but a statement that
> was drafted jointly by several other organisations.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 23/03/2015 19:14, Walid Al-Saqaf wrote:
>
>  +1
>
> The statement has my full support!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Walid
>
> -----------------
>
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> Founder & Administrator
> alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorshiphttps://alkasir.com <walid.al-saqaf at oru.se> <walid.al-saqaf at oru.se>
>
> PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>
>
>  +1 Wolfgang Benedek
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang"
> Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2015 15:42
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake;governance at lists.igcaucus.org; willi uebelherr
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: [governance] HRC in Geneva
>
> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> Rights Council.
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 

Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard)
Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „
<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/organisation/mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>Normative
Orders
<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/organisation/mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>”
<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/organisation/mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>,
University of Frankfurt am Main
Lecturer | Institute of International Law andInternational Relations
<http://voelkerrecht.uni-graz.at/en/>, University of Graz
<http://trainingszentrum-menschenrechte.uni-graz.at/en/infos-fuer-studierende/>

Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
Exzellenzcluster „Normative Ordnungen“
Max-Horkheimer-Straße 2
60629 Frankfurt am Main / Germany

E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com
Blog <http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/> | SSRN
<http://ssrn.com/author=1957909> | Google Scholar
<http://scholar.google.ch/citations?user=8jRGt2QAAAAJ> | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/MCKettemann> | Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann> | Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/116310540881122884114/posts>

Recent publications:
The Common Interest in International Law (2014, co-editor)
<http://www.intersentia.co.uk/searchDetail.aspx?bookId=103066&authors=Wolfgang>
European Yearbook on Human Rights 2014 (2014, co-editor)
<http://www.nwv.at/recht/verfassungsrecht/1077_european_yearbook_on_human_rights_2014/>
Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014, co-author)
<https://book.coe.int/eur/en/human-rights-and-democracy/5810-freedom-of-expression-and-the-internet.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150324/556f308d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From compsoftnet at gmail.com  Tue Mar 24 08:42:06 2015
From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:42:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
	<54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
	<04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
	<54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
	<092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
	<54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
	<057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
	<982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
	<03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
	<550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d0-+8ABcf4WphsK+bGBsTjzqWPZ6_k2MqCkNhkW2+UoZEA@mail.gmail.com>

I support it also.
On Mar 23, 2015 3:44 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> Rights Council.
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150324/93451566/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From sana.pryhod at gmail.com  Tue Mar 24 09:17:27 2015
From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:17:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <CAGK4d0-+8ABcf4WphsK+bGBsTjzqWPZ6_k2MqCkNhkW2+UoZEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150305104646.0804da36@quill>
	<54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
	<04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com>
	<54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
	<092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com>
	<54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
	<00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
	<54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
	<0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
	<01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com>
	<D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com>
	<057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
	<982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au>
	<03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
	<550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<CAGK4d0-+8ABcf4WphsK+bGBsTjzqWPZ6_k2MqCkNhkW2+UoZEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+C8XCLFkBmhh0kLkz7WdjshEcVOaar4FwcRROwvimKDD7LUKw@mail.gmail.com>

+1

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I support it also.
> On Mar 23, 2015 3:44 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
>> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
>> Rights Council.
>>
>>
>> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150324/dfd59e6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Mar 24 13:19:02 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:19:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5Blatinoamericann=5D_Fwd=3A_=5BAG?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=5D_Consulta_p=C3=BAblica_agenda_LACIGF_2015?=
In-Reply-To: <2CDFAB8A-4A57-4942-A6A9-D39F52E14C23@alfa-redi.org>
References: <551072AD.5040903@lactld.org> <2CDFAB8A-4A57-4942-A6A9-D39F52E14C23@alfa-redi.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6fg6T8HHqPG+7+5+XYBZQkdYVNqO8WOPNQBJyeokHmYw@mail.gmail.com>

For your information
Deirdre


*Fecha: *23 de marzo de 2015, 15:08:13 GMT-5
*De: *Carolina Aguerre <carolina at lactld.org>
*Para: *ag at lactld.org
*Asunto: **[AG] Consulta pública agenda LACIGF 2015*

 *English Below*

Estimados:
A partir de hoy y hasta *el 5 de abril *esta abierta la consulta pública
para recabar comentarios para el armado de la agenda de la 8a edición del
LAC IGF.
Agradecemos su participación y su colaboración en la difusión de esta
consulta que se encuentra disponible en castellano, inglés y portugués como
parte del trabajo del Comité de Programa del LAC IGF..

ES: http://www.lacigf.org/sp/index.html
EN: http://www.lacigf.org/en/index.html
PT: http://www.lacigf.org/pt/index.html

Saludos cordiales.
Carolina
--

Dear Colleagues,
The public consultation is now open for comments to develop the program for
the 8th edition of the LACIGF *until 5 April*.
We would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, as well as
your collaboration in the dissemination of this initiative, which is
available in Spanish, English and Portuguese. This is part of the efforts
of the Program Committee of the LAC IGF.

ES: http://www.lacigf.org/sp/index.html
EN: http://www.lacigf.org/en/index.html
PT: http://www.lacigf.org/pt/index.html

Best regards,
Carolina
-- 
   *Carolina Aguerre*
General Manager
 *Casa de Internet de Latinoamérica y el Caribe*
Rambla Rep. de México 6125
11400 Montevideo-Uruguay
+598 2604 22 22
www.lactld.org


 You are receiving this message because you are a member of the community
LatinoamerICANN <https://dgroups.org/alfa-redi-global/latinoamericann>.

View this contribution on the web site <https://dgroups.org/_/pxnh0m41>

A reply to this message will be sent to all members of LatinoamerICANN.

Reply to sender <eiriarte at alfa-redi.org> | Unsubscribe
<leave.latinoamericann at dgroups.org>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150324/c88d9eab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: agiiafge.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6025 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150324/c88d9eab/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Mar 24 17:17:55 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 02:47:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: WSF : A letter to the Tunis Forum on	its opening
 day from Alexis Tsipras
In-Reply-To: <5511D2E5.5080404@gmail.com>
References: <5511D2E5.5080404@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5511D483.9060208@itforchange.net>


Greek prime minister's letter to the World Social Forum, where the 
workshop on 'Organising an Internet Social Forum - A Call to Occupy the 
Internet' (www.InternetSocialForum.net) will be held the day after - 
meeting information enclosed .. parminder

    *From: *FSM Tunis 2015 <contact at fsm2015.org
    <mailto:contact at fsm2015.org>>

    *Subject: [infos2] WSF*

    *Date: *March 24, 2015 at 11:32:08 AM GMT+5:30

    *To: *activites at fsm2015.org <mailto:activites at fsm2015.org>,
    info3 at fsm2015.org <mailto:info3 at fsm2015.org>, infos at fsm2015.org
    <mailto:infos at fsm2015.org>, infos2 at fsm2015.org
    <mailto:infos2 at fsm2015.org>

Dear friends and comrades,

Fourteen years ago, at the beginning of the new millennium, the World 
Social Forum came to the fore as the response of the people to the 
globalization of the markets. It was deliberately meant as versatile 
meeting of movements, trade unions and associations from around the 
world, looking for progressive solutions to global problems: poverty, 
social inequality, lack of democracy, racism, environmental destruction, 
and absence of economic and social justice. By using dialogue among 
equals, as well as horizontal processes, it provided proof that social 
forces from different parts of the world, which may be militant against 
different problems, can still converge around common goals and so 
formulate an alternative vision and blueprint for the planet. With 
values like these, condensed in such slogans as "people before profits" 
and "another world is possible", the World Social Forum was the space in 
which ideas and modes of action were born and grew which would 
eventually question the global neoliberal supremacy.

Our common responsibility to build a different prospect for the world is 
much greater these days, at a time that blind fanaticism, violence and 
social regression appear as alternative perspectives before the menacing 
force of the markets. Such were the motives behind those who, just the 
other day, spread death and fear in Tunis. The movements ought to block 
decisively the way to them by winning the hearts and minds of the poor 
and the oppressed. Neither the combination of fanaticism and 
intolerance, nor that of fascism and racism can open any new way for the 
future. The world will move ahead only thanks to democracy, respect for 
rights, solidarity and common struggles.

Dear friends,

As you know, Greece has for some time now been on a collision course 
with the tenets of neo-liberalism. Faced with the disastrous policy of 
austerity and extortion by the markets, our people is determined to 
defend democracy, the welfare state, public goods and the right to an 
adequately paying job. We offer a fight for life, dignity and social 
justice, all within a struggle to orient the economy towards the needs 
of society, instead of society towards the needs of the economy and 
sheer financial profit.

Our horizons are not limited by the boundaries of our own country. They 
extend across all of Europe. We know that on our footsteps other people 
are following too, determined to use the power provided by democracy to 
make the world more just and the future more bright. The front that will 
clash with the current balance of power in Europe is already being 
formed and it becomes stronger every day.

We know that these developments will be discussed this year during the 
proceedings of the World Social Forum in Tunis. We know that a key 
consideration is the all-round support to Greece, but also to all the 
people fighting for a historic change in Europe and throughout the 
world. This is why Greece is sending today to those who participate in 
this year's Forum, a greeting of optimism, strength and determination. 
Using solidarity as their weapon, the people will win!

Alexis Tsipras

-- 

*Forum Social Mondial Tunis 2015*

*www.fsm2015.org <http://www.fsm2015.org>*

*www.wsf2015.org <http://www.wsf2015.org>*

*contact at fsm2015.org <mailto:contact at fsm2015.org>*

*www.facebook.com/fsm2015 <http://www.facebook.com/fsm2015>*

______________________________



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/0c153581/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Steeringcommittee mailing list
Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org
http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/steeringcommittee_justnetcoalition.org


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ISF flyer - Internet we want.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 94419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/0c153581/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Mar 25 00:52:46 2015
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:52:46 +0700
Subject: [governance] Update on USO Broadband Asia Pacific 2015 Forum
Message-ID: <2A09231C-2766-4B37-B88B-A2781B7479B0@gmail.com>

Dear All,

This is to advise that a few of us are here at the USO Asia Pacific Broadband Forum which is jointly organised by the ITU, Asia Development Bank and the Government of Thailand.

Information about the event and programme is available at, 
http://www.ictd-asp.org/usoforum/

Really fantastic content and more to come over the next three days.

Kind Regards,
Sala

Sent from my iPad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/75d0fc31/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar 25 01:04:18 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:34:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: WSF : A letter to the Tunis Forum on	its
 opening	day from Alexis Tsipras
In-Reply-To: <5511D483.9060208@itforchange.net>
References: <5511D2E5.5080404@gmail.com> <5511D483.9060208@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <551241D2.2020202@itforchange.net>

Re-sending bec this email did not go through... (Norbert, pl forward if 
it again does not appear on the lists, thanks), parminder

On Wednesday 25 March 2015 02:47 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> Greek prime minister's letter to the World Social Forum, where the 
> workshop on 'Organising an Internet Social Forum - A Call to Occupy 
> the Internet' (www.InternetSocialForum.net) will be held the day after 
> - meeting information enclosed .. parminder
>
>     *From: *FSM Tunis 2015 <contact at fsm2015.org
>     <mailto:contact at fsm2015.org>>
>
>     *Subject: [infos2] WSF*
>
>     *Date: *March 24, 2015 at 11:32:08 AM GMT+5:30
>
>     *To: *activites at fsm2015.org <mailto:activites at fsm2015.org>,
>     info3 at fsm2015.org <mailto:info3 at fsm2015.org>, infos at fsm2015.org
>     <mailto:infos at fsm2015.org>, infos2 at fsm2015.org
>     <mailto:infos2 at fsm2015.org>
>
> Dear friends and comrades,
>
> Fourteen years ago, at the beginning of the new millennium, the World 
> Social Forum came to the fore as the response of the people to the 
> globalization of the markets. It was deliberately meant as versatile 
> meeting of movements, trade unions and associations from around the 
> world, looking for progressive solutions to global problems: poverty, 
> social inequality, lack of democracy, racism, environmental 
> destruction, and absence of economic and social justice. By using 
> dialogue among equals, as well as horizontal processes, it provided 
> proof that social forces from different parts of the world, which may 
> be militant against different problems, can still converge around 
> common goals and so formulate an alternative vision and blueprint for 
> the planet. With values like these, condensed in such slogans as 
> "people before profits" and "another world is possible", the World 
> Social Forum was the space in which ideas and modes of action were 
> born and grew which would eventually question the global neoliberal 
> supremacy.
>
> Our common responsibility to build a different prospect for the world 
> is much greater these days, at a time that blind fanaticism, violence 
> and social regression appear as alternative perspectives before the 
> menacing force of the markets. Such were the motives behind those who, 
> just the other day, spread death and fear in Tunis. The movements 
> ought to block decisively the way to them by winning the hearts and 
> minds of the poor and the oppressed. Neither the combination of 
> fanaticism and intolerance, nor that of fascism and racism can open 
> any new way for the future. The world will move ahead only thanks to 
> democracy, respect for rights, solidarity and common struggles.
>
> Dear friends,
>
> As you know, Greece has for some time now been on a collision course 
> with the tenets of neo-liberalism. Faced with the disastrous policy of 
> austerity and extortion by the markets, our people is determined to 
> defend democracy, the welfare state, public goods and the right to an 
> adequately paying job. We offer a fight for life, dignity and social 
> justice, all within a struggle to orient the economy towards the needs 
> of society, instead of society towards the needs of the economy and 
> sheer financial profit.
>
> Our horizons are not limited by the boundaries of our own country. 
> They extend across all of Europe. We know that on our footsteps other 
> people are following too, determined to use the power provided by 
> democracy to make the world more just and the future more bright. The 
> front that will clash with the current balance of power in Europe is 
> already being formed and it becomes stronger every day.
>
> We know that these developments will be discussed this year during the 
> proceedings of the World Social Forum in Tunis. We know that a key 
> consideration is the all-round support to Greece, but also to all the 
> people fighting for a historic change in Europe and throughout the 
> world. This is why Greece is sending today to those who participate in 
> this year's Forum, a greeting of optimism, strength and determination. 
> Using solidarity as their weapon, the people will win!
>
> Alexis Tsipras
>
> -- 
>
> *Forum Social Mondial Tunis 2015*
>
> *www.fsm2015.org <http://www.fsm2015.org>*
>
> *www.wsf2015.org <http://www.wsf2015.org>*
>
> *contact at fsm2015.org <mailto:contact at fsm2015.org>*
>
> *www.facebook.com/fsm2015 <http://www.facebook.com/fsm2015>*
>
> ______________________________
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/f5d51107/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 25 02:15:34 2015
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 06:15:34 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Update on USO Broadband Asia Pacific 2015 Forum
In-Reply-To: <2A09231C-2766-4B37-B88B-A2781B7479B0@gmail.com>
References: <2A09231C-2766-4B37-B88B-A2781B7479B0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2032626626.1102021.1427264134298.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Thanks Sala for information sharing.
Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah
 
      From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
 To: "oceania-icann at icann.org" <oceania-icann at icann.org>; APRALO m <apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus - <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
 Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 9:52
 Subject: [governance] Update on USO Broadband Asia Pacific 2015 Forum
   
Dear All,
This is to advise that a few of us are here at the USO Asia Pacific Broadband Forum which is jointly organised by the ITU, Asia Development Bank and the Government of Thailand.
Information about the event and programme is available at, 
http://www.ictd-asp.org/usoforum/

Really fantastic content and more to come over the next three days.
Kind Regards,Sala

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

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

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


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/15e5e2a3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Mar 25 09:56:42 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:56:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: WSF : A letter to the Tunis Forum on its
 opening day from Alexis Tsipras
In-Reply-To: <551241D2.2020202@itforchange.net>
References: <5511D2E5.5080404@gmail.com>
	<5511D483.9060208@itforchange.net>
	<551241D2.2020202@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5dzLbO_rGMB+VC3k6wON32sqFEg5Lp4s5cqPGt4T+epQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder,
Just to let you know that I received the first sending of your message here
(GMT-4 time stamped 17.18) via the IGC list yesterday.
Thank you
Deirdre
On 25 Mar 2015 01:04, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  Re-sending bec this email did not go through... (Norbert, pl forward if
> it again does not appear on the lists, thanks), parminder
>
> On Wednesday 25 March 2015 02:47 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> Greek prime minister's letter to the World Social Forum, where the
> workshop on 'Organising an Internet Social Forum - A Call to Occupy the
> Internet' (www.InternetSocialForum.net) will be held the day after -
> meeting information enclosed .. parminder
>
>     *From: *FSM Tunis 2015 <contact at fsm2015.org>
>
> *Subject: [infos2] WSF*
>
> *Date: *March 24, 2015 at 11:32:08 AM GMT+5:30
>
> *To: *activites at fsm2015.org, info3 at fsm2015.org, infos at fsm2015.org,
> infos2 at fsm2015.org
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear friends and comrades,
>
> Fourteen years ago, at the beginning of the new millennium, the World
> Social Forum came to the fore as the response of the people to the
> globalization of the markets. It was deliberately meant as versatile
> meeting of movements, trade unions and associations from around the world,
> looking for progressive solutions to global problems: poverty, social
> inequality, lack of democracy, racism, environmental destruction, and
> absence of economic and social justice. By using dialogue among equals, as
> well as horizontal processes, it provided proof that social forces from
> different parts of the world, which may be militant against different
> problems, can still converge around common goals and so formulate an
> alternative vision and blueprint for the planet. With values like these,
> condensed in such slogans as "people before profits" and "another world is
> possible", the World Social Forum was the space in which ideas and modes of
> action were born and grew which would eventually question the global
> neoliberal supremacy.
>
> Our common responsibility to build a different prospect for the world is
> much greater these days, at a time that blind fanaticism, violence and
> social regression appear as alternative perspectives before the menacing
> force of the markets. Such were the motives behind those who, just the
> other day, spread death and fear in Tunis. The movements ought to block
> decisively the way to them by winning the hearts and minds of the poor and
> the oppressed. Neither the combination of fanaticism and intolerance, nor
> that of fascism and racism can open any new way for the future. The world
> will move ahead only thanks to democracy, respect for rights, solidarity
> and common struggles.
>
> Dear friends,
>
> As you know, Greece has for some time now been on a collision course with
> the tenets of neo-liberalism. Faced with the disastrous policy of austerity
> and extortion by the markets, our people is determined to defend democracy,
> the welfare state, public goods and the right to an adequately paying job.
> We offer a fight for life, dignity and social justice, all within a
> struggle to orient the economy towards the needs of society, instead of
> society towards the needs of the economy and sheer financial profit.
>
> Our horizons are not limited by the boundaries of our own country. They
> extend across all of Europe. We know that on our footsteps other people are
> following too, determined to use the power provided by democracy to make
> the world more just and the future more bright. The front that will clash
> with the current balance of power in Europe is already being formed and it
> becomes stronger every day.
>
> We know that these developments will be discussed this year during the
> proceedings of the World Social Forum in Tunis. We know that a key
> consideration is the all-round support to Greece, but also to all the
> people fighting for a historic change in Europe and throughout the world.
> This is why Greece is sending today to those who participate in this year's
> Forum, a greeting of optimism, strength and determination. Using solidarity
> as their weapon, the people will win!
>
> Alexis Tsipras
>
> --
>
> *Forum Social Mondial Tunis 2015*
>
> *www.fsm2015.org <http://www.fsm2015.org>*
>
> *www.wsf2015.org <http://www.wsf2015.org>*
>
> *contact at fsm2015.org <contact at fsm2015.org>*
>
> *www.facebook.com/fsm2015 <http://www.facebook.com/fsm2015>*
>
> ______________________________
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/f3c51207/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Mar 25 11:01:58 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:01:58 +0000
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?FW=3A_=5BIP=5D_Study=3A_Some_Popula?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?r_Android_Apps_Tracking_User_Location_Once_Every_Three_M?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?inutes_=96_Consumerist?=
In-Reply-To: <2DA6F544-C32E-406A-8C08-F247FEEB6E7A@gmail.com>
References: <2DA6F544-C32E-406A-8C08-F247FEEB6E7A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f56cbc1b97194a158f36d498324b518b@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

FYI and congrats Jeremy & colleagues on release of Manila Principles on Internet Liability'!

Lee
________________________________________
From: David Farber <farber at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:07 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Study: Some Popular Android Apps Tracking User Location Once Every Three Minutes – Consumerist

> http://consumerist.com/2015/03/24/study-some-popular-android-apps-tracking-user-location-once-every-three-minutes/ <http://consumerist.com/2015/03/24/study-some-popular-android-apps-tracking-user-location-once-every-three-minutes/>

International Coalition Launches 'Manila Principles' to Protect Freedom of Expression Worldwide

New 'Best Practice' Roadmap to Protect Rights and Promote Innovation

Manila - An international coalition launched the “Manila Principles on Internet Liability” today—a roadmap for the global community to protect online freedom of expression and innovation around the world.

“All communication across the Internet is facilitated by intermediaries: service providers, social networks, search engines, and more.  These services are all routinely asked to take down content, and their policies for responding are often muddled, heavy-handed, or inconsistent.  That results in censorship and the limiting of people’s rights,” said Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Senior Global Policy Analyst Jeremy Malcolm, who helped spearhead the principles.  “Our goal is to protect everyone’s freedom of expression with a framework of safeguards and best practices for responding to requests for content removal.”

EFF, Centre for Internet Society India, Article 19, and other global partners unveiled the principles today at RightsCon, a major international conference on the Internet and human rights held this week in Manila.  The framework outlines clear, fair requirements for content removal requests and details how to minimize the damage a takedown can do.  For example, if content is restricted because it’s unlawful in one country or region, then the scope of the restriction should be geographically limited as well.  The principles also urge adoption of laws shielding intermediaries from liability for third-party content, which encourages the creation of platforms that allow for online discussion and debate about controversial issues.

“People ask for expression to be removed from the Internet for various reasons, good and bad, claiming the authority of myriad local and national laws.  It’s easy for important, lawful content to get caught in the crossfire,” said Jyoti Panday from the Centre for Internet and Society India.  “We hope these principles empower everyone—from governments, to intermediaries, to the public—to fight back when online expression is censored.”

The principles and supporting documents can be found online at https://www.manilaprinciples.org, where other organizations and members of the public can also express their own endorsement of the principles.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20150325090748:E829BC10-D2EF-11E4-AC2B-A43E754921D8
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 25 11:17:38 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:17:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] Message from chlebrum
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5ByN3cf6jijEPRGVeyqRORcvyekox2E9axfG969-7J_w@mail.gmail.com>

Colleagues,
Please once again DELETE the message with the subject MARCH PROJECT.
It is malware.
It is also very difficult to get rid of it - a friend of mine here suffered
for weeks.
I suggest that you simply delete any message purporting to come from
"chlebrum" with a subject line about projects in March.
I just got another one, hence this message :-)
Deirdre
Co-coordinator IGC

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/849881d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From analia.aspis at gmail.com  Wed Mar 25 12:36:45 2015
From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 13:36:45 -0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] International Journal of
 Communication Call for Papers: Special Section on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <CABi6_T9Smzpdf9uoPGC+XOA+fCu-LDL+37mNaHCzt_U9_9kTBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D13634FF.2DBAD%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
	<D1363544.2DBB2%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
	<D1363694.2DBB9%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
	<D136EC9C.2DC78%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
	<D136ECC3.2DC7A%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
	<CABi6_T9Smzpdf9uoPGC+XOA+fCu-LDL+37mNaHCzt_U9_9kTBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABi6_T8r6qvXbSM=6aOBScqO9vh6F8=0wNvB9bV8Ni5ukt2mzQ@mail.gmail.com>

FYI






*International Journal of Communication*




*Call for Papers Special Section on Net Neutrality*

The Work of Internet Freedoms: Network Neutrality

and the Labors of Policy Advocacy in the U.S.



Special Section Editors

Becky Lentz, McGill University
Allison Perlman, University of California, Irvine



*Deadline for submissions:  August 31, 2015*



When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in February 2015 to
reclassify broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, and thus
to secure Network Neutrality and the principle of nondiscrimination at its
center, it delivered an important victory to the millions of people who had
insisted that strong Network Neutrality protections were crucial for an
open, democratic Internet. This victory owed in part to the tremendous
outpouring of public support for Network Neutrality, which itself owed to
the ongoing labors of community organizers, issue campaigners, funders,
scholar activists, public interest lawyers and many others to make visible
how issues of media policy fundamentally affect issues of social justice
and political change.



For this special section of the *International Journal of Communication*,
we seek articles that foreground the *multiple* labors involved in
achieving policy victories like the Network Neutrality Order. In this
section, we aim to make visible the often *invisible* work required to
effect lawmaking, judicial rulings, and regulations in the public interest.



We specifically wish to publish historically and theoretically informed
articles that are attentive to examples of multiple forms of advocacy work
that include but are not limited to the following: strategic research,
community organizing and mobilizing, popular education, issue campaigns,
donor advising and support, lobbying, legal interventions, regulatory
filings, and public education campaigns. Also of interest are historically
and theoretically-informed papers on the political economy of policy
advocacy, especially those attentive to the multiple forms of capital
(financial, informational, reputational, cultural) required for advocacy
work. Of particular interest is research that documents the multiple
challenges involved in advocacy work on the Network Neutrality issue. In
addition, we seek analyses of the materials and artifacts used in
organizing, mobilizing, and lobbying for Network Neutrality, including
studies of the rhetorical appeals and visual culture deployed by advocates.



We additionally seek theoretically informed analyses of how news
sources—especially non-corporate, civil society outlets—reported on and
framed the Network Neutrality issue, as a strategic feature of advocacy
work.



Finally, we seek ideas for book reviews relevant to the topic of the
special section (maximum 1,500 words including references; guidelines
available).



*Note*: For this special section, we will *not* be seeking legal
interpretations and policy analyses of the Network Neutrality debate
itself; sufficient work already exists in this area in media and
communication studies journals as well as law journals. Nor are we seeking
normative papers advancing solutions to achieve Network Neutrality.
Instead, our focus is on scholarship that foregrounds the varieties of work
required to intervene *on behalf of* the public interest.



If interested, please submit full articles by *August 31, 2015*. Articles
should be no more than 8,000 words (all-inclusive) and should follow the
APA-6th Edition style guide. Articles should be submitted to http://ijoc.org
and specify “Net Neutrality Special Section” in your entry.  For author
guidelines, see
http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/about/submissions#authorGuidelines.



Please direct any questions about topics, formats, article length and
expected submission standards to the special section editors Becky Lentz (
becky.lentz at mcgill.ca) or Allison Perlman (aperlman at uci.edu).  *Be sure to
specify* “Net Neutrality Special Section” in your email subject line.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/159cc88d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IJOC CFP_special section on NN advocacy.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 89182 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/159cc88d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 25 15:25:41 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:25:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] Considering governance
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5WtnVvAb4MtXy5iCg9NizTPoQ__py-cHPB27H6eYWX4A@mail.gmail.com>

I subscribe to the World Economics Association
<http://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/>'s Economic Thought.
There are two articles in the latest issue which, although they have
nothing to do with the internet, have interesting perspectives on
governance.
The first is On the Renting of Persons: The Neo-Abolitionist Case Against
Today’s Peculiar Institution
<http://p.feedblitz.com/t3.asp?/763931/8343874/4916334/et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/papers/on-the-renting-of-persons-the-neo-abolitionist-case-against-todays-peculiar-institution/>

*David Ellerman, *
the second
‘Animal Behavioural Economics’: Lessons Learnt From Primate Research
<http://p.feedblitz.com/t3.asp?/763931/8343874/4916334/et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/papers/animal-behavioural-economics-lessons-learnt-from-primate-research/>

*Manuel Wörsdörfer *
The second considers self-interest vs altruism as was discussed last year
on the list - Karl and Garth are the main names I remember - and which
seems to be coming up again in discussion of democracy and
multistakeholderism (in fact I believe that was the context last year too.)
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/8ca49e80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Mar 25 20:58:46 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:58:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org>
 <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
 <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
 <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6EnWSJMLS7OcNRR=H8Gqrpn09zpDjR1B6KvEY9qR-dqg@mail.gmail.com>

Colleagues,
Forty eight hours having passed with no dissenting voices and several
statements of support,
the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus supports the APC statement to
the United Nations Human Rights Council as proposed by Wolfgang
Kleinwachter.
https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe

Deirdre Williams
Co-coordinator


On 23 March 2015 at 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> Rights Council.
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150325/326d2564/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar 26 01:13:46 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:43:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6EnWSJMLS7OcNRR=H8Gqrpn09zpDjR1B6KvEY9qR-dqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com> <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com> <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAMz5XN6EnWSJMLS7OcNRR=H8Gqrpn09zpDjR1B6KvEY9qR-dqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5513958A.1040103@itforchange.net>

Belated vote of support

parminder

On Thursday 26 March 2015 06:28 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> Colleagues,
> Forty eight hours having passed with no dissenting voices and several 
> statements of support,
> the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus supports the APC 
> statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council as proposed by 
> Wolfgang Kleinwachter.
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
> Deirdre Williams
> Co-coordinator
>
>
> On 23 March 2015 at 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 
> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> wrote:
>
>     I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN
>     Human Rights Council.
>
>     https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>
>     Wolfgang
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir 
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/ad01b303/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Mar 26 04:39:00 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:39:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN6EnWSJMLS7OcNRR=H8Gqrpn09zpDjR1B6KvEY9qR-dqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com> <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com> <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAMz5XN6EnWSJMLS7OcNRR=H8Gqrpn09zpDjR1B6KvEY9qR-dqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5513C5A4.90306@apc.org>

Dear all

Thanks for the support. We have added the IGC to the list of
endorsements.  Please do note that the oral statement was read and
tabled at the HRC already, so on the official record, at this stage,
IGC's name won't appear. But we will ask the HRC people if we can update
the list of endorsements after the fact.

Live webcast is here:
http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/28th-regular-session-of-human-rights-council/3986426598001

But looking at the order of the day I think the resolution might only be
discussed tomorrow.

People who are in Geneva, please update us if you can.

Anriette


On 26/03/2015 02:58, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> Colleagues,
> Forty eight hours having passed with no dissenting voices and several
> statements of support,
> the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus supports the APC statement to
> the United Nations Human Rights Council as proposed by Wolfgang
> Kleinwachter.
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
> 
> Deirdre Williams
> Co-coordinator
> 
> 
> On 23 March 2015 at 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 
>> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
>> Rights Council.
>>
>>
>> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>>
>> 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 09:15:25 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:15:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political
 Economy of Internet Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids
 Western hegemony
In-Reply-To: <D139727A.2DFFB%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
References: <D139727A.2DFFB%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4owGAfcW6uhBkdjcqEie122OZvEYGhwOuMZy6M+Lm5zQ@mail.gmail.com>

For your information.
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Becky Lentz <roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca>
Date: 26 March 2015 at 08:25
Subject: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of Internet
Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids Western hegemony
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net


Might be of interest to some…

*http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw <http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw>*

Discussions surrounding the role of the internet in society are dominated
by terms such as *internet freedom*, *surveillance*, *cybersecurity,* and,
most prolifically, *cyber war*. But behind the rhetoric of cyber war is an
ongoing state-centered battle for control of information resources. Shawn
Powers and Michael Jablonski conceptualize this *real* cyber war as the
utilization of digital networks for geopolitical purposes, including covert
attacks against another state’s electronic systems, but also, and more
importantly, the variety of ways the internet is used to further a state’s
economic and military agendas.

Moving beyond debates on the democratic value of new and emerging
information technologies, *The Real Cyber War* focuses on political,
economic, and geopolitical factors driving internet freedom policies, in
particular the U.S. State Department's emerging doctrine in support of a
universal freedom to connect. They argue that efforts to create a universal
internet built upon Western legal, political, and social preferences is
driven by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than the
humanitarian and democratic ideals that typically accompany related policy
discourse. In fact, the freedom-to-connect movement is intertwined with
broader efforts to structure global society in ways that favor American and
Western cultures, economies, and governments….

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/f4d98aff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 10:11:18 2015
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:11:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <5513C5A4.90306@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org>
 <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org>
 <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
 <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
 <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CAMz5XN6EnWSJMLS7OcNRR=H8Gqrpn09zpDjR1B6KvEY9qR-dqg@mail.gmail.com> <5513C5A4.90306@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLuysv9+ZPcAzneL_Ey8PHfcJbCy29BHuLCfdiB-s6Mtpw@mail.gmail.com>

Apoyo la propuesta


Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo


2015-03-26 3:39 GMT-05:00 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
> Dear all
>
> Thanks for the support. We have added the IGC to the list of
> endorsements.  Please do note that the oral statement was read and
> tabled at the HRC already, so on the official record, at this stage,
> IGC's name won't appear. But we will ask the HRC people if we can update
> the list of endorsements after the fact.
>
> Live webcast is here:
> http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/28th-regular-session-of-human-rights-council/3986426598001
>
> But looking at the order of the day I think the resolution might only be
> discussed tomorrow.
>
> People who are in Geneva, please update us if you can.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 26/03/2015 02:58, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>> Colleagues,
>> Forty eight hours having passed with no dissenting voices and several
>> statements of support,
>> the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus supports the APC statement to
>> the United Nations Human Rights Council as proposed by Wolfgang
>> Kleinwachter.
>> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>>
>> Deirdre Williams
>> Co-coordinator
>>
>>
>> On 23 March 2015 at 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
>>> Rights Council.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Mar 26 10:43:03 2015
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:43:03 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political
 Economy of Internet Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids
 Western hegemony
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4owGAfcW6uhBkdjcqEie122OZvEYGhwOuMZy6M+Lm5zQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D139727A.2DFFB%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
 <CAMz5XN4owGAfcW6uhBkdjcqEie122OZvEYGhwOuMZy6M+Lm5zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1825464492.6714.1427380983121.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f23>

Dear Michael, Deirdre and all

 

Deidre wrote



 

This statement is right but restrective. If states -remember the "Five Eyes Alliance"- are the "center" of Internet hegemony and its consequences, they are not the only ones that take profit from it : the "Big Fives" are at the other beneficiaries (in gigadollars) from this biased/assymetric situation. And that deserves another comment/debate.

 

Best

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

  

 

> Message du 26/03/15 14:16
> De : "Deirdre Williams" 
> A : "Internet Governance" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of Internet Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids Western hegemony
> 
>
For your information.
Deirdre

>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Becky Lentz 
> Date: 26 March 2015 at 08:25
> Subject: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of Internet Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids Western hegemony
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> 
> 
>

Might be of interest to some…


> 
http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw


> 
Discussions surrounding the role of the internet in society are dominated by terms such as internet freedom, surveillance, cybersecurity, and, most prolifically, cyber war. But behind the rhetoric of cyber war is an ongoing state-centered battle for control of information resources. Shawn Powers and Michael Jablonski conceptualize this real cyber war as the utilization of digital networks for geopolitical purposes, including covert attacks against another state’s electronic systems, but also, and more importantly, the variety of ways the internet is used to further a state’s economic and military agendas.

>
Moving beyond debates on the democratic value of new and emerging information technologies, The Real Cyber War focuses on political, economic, and geopolitical factors driving internet freedom policies, in particular the U.S. State Department's emerging doctrine in support of a universal freedom to connect. They argue that efforts to create a universal internet built upon Western legal, political, and social preferences is driven by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than the humanitarian and democratic ideals that typically accompany related policy discourse. In fact, the freedom-to-connect movement is intertwined with broader efforts to structure global society in ways that favor American and Western cultures, economies, and governments….  


> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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





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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/a785fa05/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 10:56:59 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:56:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political
 Economy of Internet Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids
 Western hegemony
In-Reply-To: <1825464492.6714.1427380983121.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f23>
References: <D139727A.2DFFB%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca> <CAMz5XN4owGAfcW6uhBkdjcqEie122OZvEYGhwOuMZy6M+Lm5zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1825464492.6714.1427380983121.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f23>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4zyyr5ZJprFDZ=qRKn6bdSRSLvmdEvq+sdMMOQ+sdD-Q@mail.gmail.com>

I'm trying to get hold of the book - I think it would be an interesting
read.
Judging by this:

They argue that efforts to create a universal internet built upon Western
legal, political, and social preferences is driven by economic and
geopolitical motivations rather than the humanitarian and democratic ideals
that typically accompany related policy discourse. In fact, the
freedom-to-connect movement is intertwined with broader efforts to
structure global society in ways that favor American and Western cultures,
economies, and governments.

from the review, the text would seem to address your concerns, although I
should like to be able to have a "flick through" to be sure, before
committing to buying it.
By the way, it was interesting to note that the price of $12.49 US here
<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_14?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=the+real+cyber+war&sprefix=The+real+cyber%2Cnull%2C332>
jumped
to $14.49 here
<http://www.amazon.com/Real-Cyber-War-Political-Communication-ebook/dp/B00UGIKUVA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1427376048&sr=1-1&keywords=the+real+cyber+war>
where
it includes "free" wireless delivery.

Deirdre

On 26 March 2015 at 10:43, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:

> Dear Michael, Deirdre and all
>
>
>
> Deidre wrote
>
> <Discussions surrounding the role of the internet in society are dominated
> by terms such as *internet freedom*, *surveillance*, *cybersecurity,*
> and, most prolifically, *cyber war*. But behind the rhetoric of cyber war
> is an ongoing state-centered battle for control of information resources.>
>
>
>
> This statement is right but restrective. If states -remember the "Five
> Eyes Alliance"- are the "center" of Internet hegemony and its consequences,
> they are not the only ones that take profit from it : the "Big Fives" are
> at the other beneficiaries (in gigadollars) from this biased/assymetric
> situation. And that deserves another comment/debate.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 26/03/15 14:16
> > De : "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> > A : "Internet Governance" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political
> Economy of Internet Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids
> Western hegemony
>
> >
> >
> For your information.
> Deirdre
>
> >
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Becky Lentz <roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca>
> > Date: 26 March 2015 at 08:25
> > Subject: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of Internet
> Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids Western hegemony
> > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >
> >
> >
> Might be of interest to some…
>
> >
> *http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw <http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw>*
>
> *> *
> Discussions surrounding the role of the internet in society are dominated
> by terms such as *internet freedom*, *surveillance*, *cybersecurity,*
> and, most prolifically, *cyber war*. But behind the rhetoric of cyber war
> is an ongoing state-centered battle for control of information resources.
> Shawn Powers and Michael Jablonski conceptualize this *real* cyber war as
> the utilization of digital networks for geopolitical purposes, including
> covert attacks against another state’s electronic systems, but also, and
> more importantly, the variety of ways the internet is used to further a
> state’s economic and military agendas.
>
> >
> Moving beyond debates on the democratic value of new and emerging
> information technologies, *The Real Cyber War* focuses on political,
> economic, and geopolitical factors driving internet freedom policies, in
> particular the U.S. State Department's emerging doctrine in support of a
> universal freedom to connect. They argue that efforts to create a universal
> internet built upon Western legal, political, and social preferences is
> driven by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than the
> humanitarian and democratic ideals that typically accompany related policy
> discourse. In fact, the freedom-to-connect movement is intertwined with
> broader efforts to structure global society in ways that favor American and
> Western cultures, economies, and governments….
>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/ca50e686/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 11:32:15 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:32:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Invitation to GGCS2015 Webinars #5, #6
 & #7
In-Reply-To: <CAE=oip-89-Yh9r5wLwUCs01JR2jh9duGwO1J650ypWDbfADxig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE=oip-89-Yh9r5wLwUCs01JR2jh9duGwO1J650ypWDbfADxig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6=h1zgWVfJziq99wp6Q8WfX0fq+_fowbfvn=E_koyXxQ@mail.gmail.com>

This may be of interest.
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Aditi Gupta <aditi at gp-digital.org>
Date: 26 March 2015 at 07:00
Subject: [bestbits] Invitation to GGCS2015 Webinars #5, #6 & #7
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net


Dear friends,
*(with apologies for cross-posting)*

As part of the effort to facilitate effective civil society engagement in
The Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS2015), a tailor-made training
program for civil society will be delivered through a series of seven
webinars in the run up to the Conference.

On behalf of the GCCS2015 Advisory Board
<https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/AB%20Profiles%20with%20pictures.pdf>,
we would like to invite you to join us for the next three webinars in this
series:

*Friday 27 March 13:00 GMT: Webinar #5 - Cybercrime*
Tatiana Tropina, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International
Criminal Law
Please register at this link <http://tinyurl.com/mtj3gch> after which you
will receive information on how to join.

*Wednesday 1 April 14:00 GMT: Webinar #6 - Capacity-Building*
Vladimir Radunović, DiploFoundation
Please register at this link <http://tinyurl.com/lnhvzx8> after which you
will receive information on how to join.

*Tuesday 7 April 14:00 GMT: Webinar #7 - Privacy*
Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners Digital
Please register at this link <http://tinyurl.com/m927ep7> after which you
will receive information on how to join.

All webinars in the series will be delivered by experts in the field and
will mirror the agenda of the main Conference, allowing participants to
gain a wider understanding of the cybersecurity and human rights issues
that will be addressed at the Conference. This webinar series has been
organised by the GCCS Advisory Board, under the leadership of Tim Maurer
and in partnership with the Government of the Netherlands.

The webinars will each consist of a 30 minute presentation, followed by a
30 minute Q&A session where participants will be able to interact with the
speaker. In this way, this training programme will attempt to maximise
civil society engagement in GCCS2015, allowing for more robust and
inclusive debate.

*Please feel free to share this link with your networks.*

For questions or assistance, please contact us at aditi at gp-digital.org

Best wishes,

Aditi

-- 
*Aditi Gupta*
Project Assistant | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0) <%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200337>207 549 0338 | M: +44 (0)7
<%2B44%20%280%297852%20535222>876688351 | gp-digital.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



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/7b19bcdf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From deborah at apc.org  Thu Mar 26 11:41:59 2015
From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:41:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <5513C5A4.90306@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com> <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com> <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com> <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAMz5XN6EnWSJMLS7OcNRR=H8Gqrpn09zpDjR1B6KvEY9qR-dqg@mail.gmail.com> <5513C5A4.90306@apc.org>
Message-ID: <551428C7.8030906@apc.org>

Dear all,
The resolution is being considered now. You can follow the webcast at
the link that Anriette provided.
Best,
Deborah

On 3/26/15 4:39 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Thanks for the support. We have added the IGC to the list of
> endorsements.  Please do note that the oral statement was read and
> tabled at the HRC already, so on the official record, at this stage,
> IGC's name won't appear. But we will ask the HRC people if we can update
> the list of endorsements after the fact.
>
> Live webcast is here:
>
http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/28th-regular-session-of-human-rights-council/3986426598001
>
> But looking at the order of the day I think the resolution might only be
> discussed tomorrow.
>
> People who are in Geneva, please update us if you can.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 26/03/2015 02:58, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>> Colleagues,
>> Forty eight hours having passed with no dissenting voices and several
>> statements of support,
>> the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus supports the APC
statement to
>> the United Nations Human Rights Council as proposed by Wolfgang
>> Kleinwachter.
>>
https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>>
>> Deirdre Williams
>> Co-coordinator
>>
>>
>> On 23 March 2015 at 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
>>> Rights Council.
>>>
>>>
>>>
https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
>>>
>>> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/a2d0bf1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Mar 26 11:49:58 2015
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:49:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
Message-ID: <E1YbA2l-0004xM-IA@smarthost1.greenhost.nl>

Thanks a lot!

On 26 Mar 2015 10:41, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> The resolution is being considered now. You can follow the webcast at the link that Anriette provided.
> Best,
> Deborah
>
> On 3/26/15 4:39 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > Thanks for the support. We have added the IGC to the list of
> > endorsements.  Please do note that the oral statement was read and
> > tabled at the HRC already, so on the official record, at this stage,
> > IGC's name won't appear. But we will ask the HRC people if we can update
> > the list of endorsements after the fact.
> >
> > Live webcast is here:
> > http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/28th-regular-session-of-human-rights-council/3986426598001
> >
> > But looking at the order of the day I think the resolution might only be
> > discussed tomorrow.
> >
> > People who are in Geneva, please update us if you can.
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> >
> > On 26/03/2015 02:58, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> >> Colleagues,
> >> Forty eight hours having passed with no dissenting voices and several
> >> statements of support,
> >> the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus supports the APC statement to
> >> the United Nations Human Rights Council as proposed by Wolfgang
> >> Kleinwachter.
> >> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
> >>
> >> Deirdre Williams
> >> Co-coordinator
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23 March 2015 at 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> >>> Rights Council.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
> >>>
> >>> 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 11:50:02 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:50:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <551428C7.8030906@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh12HYxeqCLGk+CL_Eb1VghTo4bh_76GS1Mf-BpCxiVeV4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com>
 <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYpmQk=S0JPZyPeYM-x7WCvZbAyYwaqYzRKXnJ9_spEJGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D12063C9.72632%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net>
 <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <D120BD23.7266A%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> <057c01d0597e$60cf15c0$226d4140$@gmail.com>
 <982CBB66-BC3E-4D27-B5E3-6B2065BD1459@difference.com.au> <03c701d064a8$316832a0$943897e0$@gmail.com>
 <550EFA3E.5000304@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CAMz5XN6EnWSJMLS7OcNRR=H8Gqrpn09zpDjR1B6KvEY9qR-dqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5513C5A4.90306@apc.org> <551428C7.8030906@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4=esce==fRYH88pms9GkDReAm0d1rmx4bS1nP=pj+Wpw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Deborah
Deirdre

On 26 March 2015 at 11:41, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> wrote:

>  Dear all,
> The resolution is being considered now. You can follow the webcast at the
> link that Anriette provided.
> Best,
> Deborah
>
>
> On 3/26/15 4:39 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > Thanks for the support. We have added the IGC to the list of
> > endorsements.  Please do note that the oral statement was read and
> > tabled at the HRC already, so on the official record, at this stage,
> > IGC's name won't appear. But we will ask the HRC people if we can update
> > the list of endorsements after the fact.
> >
> > Live webcast is here:
> >
> http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/28th-regular-session-of-human-rights-council/3986426598001
> >
> > But looking at the order of the day I think the resolution might only be
> > discussed tomorrow.
> >
> > People who are in Geneva, please update us if you can.
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> >
> > On 26/03/2015 02:58, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> >> Colleagues,
> >> Forty eight hours having passed with no dissenting voices and several
> >> statements of support,
> >> the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus supports the APC statement
> to
> >> the United Nations Human Rights Council as proposed by Wolfgang
> >> Kleinwachter.
> >>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
> >>
> >> Deirdre Williams
> >> Co-coordinator
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23 March 2015 at 10:42, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I propose that the Caucus Support the APC statemnent for the UN Human
> >>> Rights Council.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/ngos-call-governments-support-establishment-un-spe
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/c9329529/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Thu Mar 26 12:28:43 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:28:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for papers: 5th International Symposium on Cloud
 & Trusted Computing (C&TC 2015)
Message-ID: <02f701d067e1$eced46a0$c6c7d3e0$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]

 

==========================================================================

CALL FOR PAPERS

5th International Symposium on Cloud Computing, Trusted Computing and 

Secure Virtual Infrastructures -- Cloud and Trusted Computing (C&TC 2015)

October 26-28, 2015 -- Rhodes, Greece

http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/cloud-trust-15

==========================================================================

 

===========

Description

===========

 

Current and future software needs to remain focused towards the development
and deployment of large and complex intelligent and networked information
systems, required for internet-based and intranet-based systems in
organizations. Today software covers a very wide range of application
domains as well as technology and research issues. This has found
realization through Cloud Computing. Vital element in such networked
information systems are the notions of trust, security, privacy and risk
management.

 

Cloud and Trusted Computing (C&TC 2015) is the 5th International Symposium
on Cloud Computing, Trusted Computing and Secure Virtual Infrastructures,
organized as a component conference of the OnTheMove Federated Conferences &
Workshops. C&TC 2015 will be held in Rhodes, Greece. 

 

The conference solicits submissions from both academia and industry
presenting novel research in the context of Cloud Computing, presenting
theoretical and practical approaches to cloud trust, security, privacy and
risk management. The conference will provide a special focus on the
intersection between cloud and trust bringing together experts from the two
communities to discuss on the vital issues of trust, security, privacy and
risk management in Cloud Computing. Potential contributions could cover new
approaches, methodologies, protocols, tools, or verification and validation
techniques. We also welcome review papers that analyze critically the
current status of trust, security, privacy and risk management in the cloud.
Papers from practitioners who encounter trust, security, privacy and risk
management problems and seek understanding are also welcome.

 

Topics of interests of C&TC 2015 include, but are not limited to:

 

TRUST, SECURITY, PRIVACY AND RISK MANAGEMENT IN CLOUD COMPUTING

- Assurance Techniques

- Access Control, Authorization, and Authentication

- Cloud Computing with Autonomic and Trusted Environment

- Cryptographic Algorithms and Protocols

- Cyber Attack, Crime and Cyber War

- DRM, Watermarking Technology, IP Protection

- Emergency and Security Systems

- End-to-end security over complex cloud supply chain

- Forensics

- Human Interaction with Trusted and Autonomic Computing Systems

- Identity and Trust Management

- Multimedia Security Issues over Mobile and Wireless Clouds

- Network Security

- Networks of Trust, Clouds of Trust

- Privacy, Anonymity

- Privilege Management Infrastructure

- Reliable Computing and Trusted Computing

- Risk evaluation and Management

- Security, Dependability and Autonomic Issues in Ubiquitous Computing

- Security Models and Quantifications

- Self-protection and Intrusion-detection in Security

- Trust Evaluation and Prediction in Service-Oriented Environments

- Trust, Security, Privacy and Confidentiality

- Trusted Computing in virtualized environments

- Trusted P2P, Web Service, SoA, SaaS, EaaS, PaaS, XaaS

- Virus Detections and Anti-virus Techniques/Software

 

CLOUD DATA MANAGEMENT

- Algorithms and Computations on Encrypted Data

- Big Data, Frameworks and Systems for Parallel and Distributed Computing

- Database as a Service, Multi-tenancy, Data management and analytics as a
service

- Data Science and Scalable Machine Learning

- Elasticity and Scalability for Cloud Data Management Systems

- High Availability and Reliability

- Interoperability between Clouds

- New Protocols, Interfaces and Data Models for Cloud Databases

- Resource and Workload Management in Cloud Databases

- Service Level Agreements and Contracts

- Transactional Models for Cloud Databases, Consistency and Replication

- Virtualization and Cloud databases, Storage Structures and Indexing

 

CLOUD COMPUTING INFRASTRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURES

- Autonomic Computing Theory, Models, Architectures and Communications

- Cloud Resource provisioning with QoS Guarantees

- Cloud Operation and Resource Management

- Cloud Performance Modeling and Benchmarks

- Datacenter Architecture and Management

- Formal methods and Tools for Cloud computing

- Infrastructures for Social Computing and Networking

- Software Architectures and Design for Trusted Emerging Systems

- Virtualized Computing Infrastructures

 

CLOUD COMPUTING APPLICATIONS

- Cloud Business Applications and Case Studies

- Clouds and Social Media, Network and Link Analysis

- Large Scale Cloud Applications, Reality Mining

- Mobile Cloud Services

- New Parallel / Concurrent Programming Models for Cloud Computing

- Pervasive / Ubiquitous Computing in the Cloud

- Reliability, Fault Tolerance, Quality-of-Service

- Service Level Agreements and Performance Measurement

- Service-Oriented Architectures, RESTful Services in Cloud Environments

 

===============

Important Dates

===============

 

- Abstract Submission Deadline: June 23, 2015

- Paper Submission Deadline: June 30, 2015

- Acceptance Notification: August 7, 2015

- Camera Ready Due: September 1, 2015

- Author Registration Due: September 1, 2015

 

================

Paper Submission

================

 

FULL PAPERS

Full paper submissions to Cloud and Trusted Computing 2015 (C&TC 2015) must
present original, highly innovative, prospective and forward-looking
research in one or more of the themes given above. Full papers must break
new ground, present new insight, deliver a significant research contribution
and provide validated support for its results and conclusions. Successful
submissions typically represent a major advance for the field of cloud
computing, referencing and relating the contribution to existing research
work, giving a comprehensive, detailed and understandable explanation of a
system, study, theory or methodology, and support the findings with a
compelling evaluation and/or validation. Each paper must be submitted as a
single PDF file in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science format (not
longer than 18 pages in length). Accepted regular papers will be included in
the printed conference main proceedings and presented in the paper sessions.
Submissions to C&TC 2015 must not be under review by any other conference or
publication at any time during the C&TC review cycle, and must not be
previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere.

 

NOTES

Notes (not longer than 6 pages in length) must report new results and
provide support for the results, as a novel and valuable contribution to the
field – just like full papers. Notes are intended for succinct work that is
nonetheless in a mature state ready for inclusion in archival proceedings.
Notes will be held to the same standard of scientific quality as full
papers, albeit for a shorter presentation, and must still state how they fit
with respect to related work, and provide a compelling explanation and
validation. Notes must be submitted as single PDF file in Springer Lecture
Notes in Computer Science format. Accepted notes will be published in the
conference main proceedings and will be presented in the paper sessions of
the conference.

 

A selection of the best papers from Cloud and Trusted Computing 2015 will be
published in a special issue of The International Journal of Computer
Systems Science and Engineering.

Submissions are to be made to the submission web site available at
http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/submitpaper

 

PAPER FORMATTING AND PRESENTING

The paper and notes submission site giving all the relevant submission
details is located at:
http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/authors-kit/camconfpapers.
Failure to comply with the formatting instructions for submitted papers or
notes will lead to the outright rejection of the paper without review.
Failure to commit to presentation at the conference automatically excludes a
paper from the proceedings.

 

===============

Program Chairs

===============

 

- Claudio Agostino Ardagna, Universita' degli studi di Milano, Italy

- Meiko Jensen, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection
Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

 

==================

Advisory Committee 

==================

 

- Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli studi di Milano, Italy

- Salim Hariri, The University of Arizona, USA

- Robert Meersman, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

- Siani Pearson, HP Labs, UK

 

=================

Program Committee 

=================

 

TO BE COMPLETED SOON

 

Marco Anisetti, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

Vijay Atluri, Rutgers University, USA

N. Balakrishnan, Indian Institute of Science, India

Endre Bangerter, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland        

Michele Bezzi, SAP, France

Bud Brugger, Fraunhofer IAO, Germany

Marco Casassa Mont, HP Labs, UK

David Chadwick, University of Kent, UK

Henry Chan, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Alfredo Cuzzocrea, University of Calabria, Italy

Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

Stefan Dessloch, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany

Francesco Di Cerbo, SAP Labs, France

Scharam Dustdar, Technical University of Vienna, Austria

Stefanos Gritzalis, University of the Aegean, Greece

Nils Gruschka, FH Kiel, Germany

Marit Hansen, Unabhangiges Landeszentrum fur Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein,
Kiel, Germany

Ching Hsien Hsu, Chung Hua University, Taiwan

Patrick Hung, University of Ontario, Canada

Martin Jaatun, SINTEF ICT, Norway

Florian Kerschbaum, SAP, Germany

Ryan Ko, University of Waikato, New Zealand

Zhiqiang Lin, UT Dallas, USA

Luigi Lo Iacono, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Gregorio Martinez, University of Murcia, Spain

Hadi Otrok, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Smriti R. Ramakrishnan, Oracle Corporation, USA

Damien Sauveron, Universite' de Limoges, France

Jorg Schwenk, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany

Russell Sears, Pure Storage, USA

Bhavani Thuraisingham, UT Dallas, USA

Luca Vigano', King's College London, UK

 

===============

Publicity Chair 

===============

 

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

 

More information available at
http://www.onthemove-conferences.org/index.php/cloud-trust-15

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/9373b9d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 12:29:37 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:29:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of
 Internet Freedom
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4owGAfcW6uhBkdjcqEie122OZvEYGhwOuMZy6M+Lm5zQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D139727A.2DFFB%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca> <CAMz5XN4owGAfcW6uhBkdjcqEie122OZvEYGhwOuMZy6M+Lm5zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <551433F1.9090405@gmail.com>


Dear Deirdre, Becky and all

 > Might be of interest to some…

But this lists are not marketplaces for selling any things. If you don't 
have a link for a free download, it is not really useful.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 26/03/2015 um 09:15 a.m. schrieb Deirdre Williams:
> For your information.
> Deirdre
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Becky Lentz <roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca>
> Date: 26 March 2015 at 08:25
> Subject: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of Internet
> Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids Western hegemony
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>
>
> Might be of interest to some…
>
> *http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw <http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw>*
>
> Discussions surrounding the role of the internet in society are dominated
> by terms such as *internet freedom*, *surveillance*, *cybersecurity,* and,
> most prolifically, *cyber war*. But behind the rhetoric of cyber war is an
> ongoing state-centered battle for control of information resources. Shawn
> Powers and Michael Jablonski conceptualize this *real* cyber war as the
> utilization of digital networks for geopolitical purposes, including covert
> attacks against another state’s electronic systems, but also, and more
> importantly, the variety of ways the internet is used to further a state’s
> economic and military agendas.
>
> Moving beyond debates on the democratic value of new and emerging
> information technologies, *The Real Cyber War* focuses on political,
> economic, and geopolitical factors driving internet freedom policies, in
> particular the U.S. State Department's emerging doctrine in support of a
> universal freedom to connect. They argue that efforts to create a universal
> internet built upon Western legal, political, and social preferences is
> driven by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than the
> humanitarian and democratic ideals that typically accompany related policy
> discourse. In fact, the freedom-to-connect movement is intertwined with
> broader efforts to structure global society in ways that favor American and
> Western cultures, economies, and governments….
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 12:30:44 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:30:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] PS to one of the articles I shared yesterday
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN73vdwid_V8=e4eHvSjuRTmiXEV4hfN4y2Q3zY-pf3=6w@mail.gmail.com>

Yesterday I shared the Ellerman article "On the Renting of Persons"
Today brought this article "Will there be a revolt in the sharing economy
<http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20150325-revolt-in-the-sharing-economy>?"
which seems to provide the link, which I noted yesterday was missing, with
the internet as well as with governance.
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/42a52779/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 12:47:53 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:47:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political
 Economy of Internet Freedom
In-Reply-To: <551433F1.9090405@gmail.com>
References: <D139727A.2DFFB%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca> <CAMz5XN4owGAfcW6uhBkdjcqEie122OZvEYGhwOuMZy6M+Lm5zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <551433F1.9090405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5KKXbzGR97AGCFJa_ipsVoSSZSR0HdUO5HDmzGWELhzg@mail.gmail.com>

Information is sadly only really free if you live in the first world.
Certainly not in Saint Lucia where I live, and apparently not in Bolivia
either.
But there are still many lucky people associated with northern institutions
who have access - the heads up was for them.
I was disappointed too.
Perhaps "Access for us too" is something we should begin to make a fuss
about?
Best wishes
Deirdre

On 26 March 2015 at 12:29, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Dear Deirdre, Becky and all
>
> > Might be of interest to some…
>
> But this lists are not marketplaces for selling any things. If you don't
> have a link for a free download, it is not really useful.
>
> many greetings, willi
> La Paz, Bolivia
>
>
> Am 26/03/2015 um 09:15 a.m. schrieb Deirdre Williams:
>
>> For your information.
>> Deirdre
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Becky Lentz <roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca>
>> Date: 26 March 2015 at 08:25
>> Subject: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of Internet
>> Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids Western hegemony
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>
>>
>> Might be of interest to some…
>>
>> *http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw <http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw>*
>>
>> Discussions surrounding the role of the internet in society are dominated
>> by terms such as *internet freedom*, *surveillance*, *cybersecurity,* and,
>> most prolifically, *cyber war*. But behind the rhetoric of cyber war is an
>> ongoing state-centered battle for control of information resources. Shawn
>> Powers and Michael Jablonski conceptualize this *real* cyber war as the
>> utilization of digital networks for geopolitical purposes, including
>> covert
>> attacks against another state’s electronic systems, but also, and more
>> importantly, the variety of ways the internet is used to further a state’s
>> economic and military agendas.
>>
>> Moving beyond debates on the democratic value of new and emerging
>> information technologies, *The Real Cyber War* focuses on political,
>> economic, and geopolitical factors driving internet freedom policies, in
>> particular the U.S. State Department's emerging doctrine in support of a
>> universal freedom to connect. They argue that efforts to create a
>> universal
>> internet built upon Western legal, political, and social preferences is
>> driven by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than the
>> humanitarian and democratic ideals that typically accompany related policy
>> discourse. In fact, the freedom-to-connect movement is intertwined with
>> broader efforts to structure global society in ways that favor American
>> and
>> Western cultures, economies, and governments….
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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:
>      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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/70ddb1a5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Mar 26 14:30:16 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:30:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] VIDEO: National Security and Cyber Surveillance: A
 Debate
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0Hj+mDr-hCXn1mKDaMREGRaKmjSEqJ6it=r7tmx5sSvg@mail.gmail.com>

I am not going to tell you how this turned out -  let us just say that
"Never say never" never gets old.


 joly posted: "On Wednesday March 25 2016 George Washington University
hosted National Security and Cyber Surveillance: A Debate in Washington DC.
Using the Oxford debate format, the resolution was Should the government
never engage in bulk data collection for national "



On *Wednesday March 25 2016* George Washington University hosted *National
Security and Cyber Surveillance: A Debate*
<http://www.universityseminars-ifg.seas.gwu.edu/#!upcoming-events-natsecuritycybersecurity/c18oj>
in Washington DC. Using the Oxford debate format
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate#Oxford-Style_debate>, the resolution
was *Should the government never engage in bulk data collection for
national security purposes?* *Lee Tien*, Senior Staff Attorney and Adams
Chair for Internet Rights of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and *Chris
Soghoian*, Principal Technologist and a Senior Policy Analyst of the ACLU
represented the “pro” side. Professor *Orin Kerr* of GW Law and *Paul Clark*,
President and CTO of Secure Methods LLC argued the “con” side. The event
was webcast live y the Internet Society's North America Bureau. Video is
below.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX9ZbGhLRkI?rel=0>

*View on YouTube*: https://youtu.be/mX9ZbGhLRkI
* Transcribe on AMARA*: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/pGpVklRRqoiZ/
* Twitter*: #gwigf
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23gwifg&src=typd>
Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7668#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7668#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7668






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/859c7e74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Mar 26 14:37:45 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:37:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] EVENT 3/26: A Digital Magna Carta : Internet
 Governance and a New Social Contract
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk26Kg1nO=cO5Kqftu8Bk2pOzY_JpKq3yTy5h4AR_qjrow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk26Kg1nO=cO5Kqftu8Bk2pOzY_JpKq3yTy5h4AR_qjrow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0_QCNidx-xjqX2oR4CuhmvOky+KwF2C7r1fkxa-yuQGA@mail.gmail.com>

I'm happy to confirm we will be livestreaming tonight's event
http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/digitalmagnacarta

Please note the Manila Principles <https://www.manilaprinciples.org/>,
launched earlier in the week. Sure to come up.

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> It was the Geneva Declaration
> <http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html> in 2003 which
> launched the WSIS process
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society>
> that led to the formation of the IGF.  Tim Berners Lee, who we will not
> forget developed the World Wide Web in Switzerland, recently called for a "Digital
> Magna Carta
> <http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_a_magna_carta_for_the_web>".
> Geneva has been rumored
> <http://domainincite.com/14390-no-icann-isnt-moving-to-switzerland> as a
> possible future home for ICANN. ISOC already has one of its two global
> offices there. Lastly, of course the NETmundial Initiative
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetMundial_Initiative> was founded at the
> WEF in Davos. So it is no small wonder that the Swiss Consulate in NYC is
> taking an interest in Internet Governance! To talk about it they are flying
> in some great speakers, including ISOC-NY member George Sadowsky, ISOC
> Global's Constance Bommelaer, and Diplo's Jovan Kurbalija . Permission to
> livestream has been requested and I will confirm if it comes through. In
> person attendees should sign up right away as it's not a big room.
>
>
>  joly posted: "On Thursday March 26 2015 the Consulate General of
> Switzerland and the New America Foundation present A Digital Magna Carta :
> Internet Governance and a New Social Contract. A distinguished panel will
> discuss the future of the Internet in an increasingly c"
>
>
> [image: digital magna carta]
> <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>On *Thursday March
> 26 2015* the *Consulate General of Switzerland*
> <http://facebook.com/SwissConsulateNewYork> and the *New America
> Foundation* <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/> present *A Digital Magna
> Carta : Internet Governance and a New Social Contract
> <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>*. A distinguished
> panel will discuss the future of the Internet in an increasingly connected,
> globalized world. Speakers: *Dr. Jovan Kurbalija*, Director,
> DiploFoundation, & Author, *Introduction to Internet Governance*
> <http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/introduction-internet-governance>
> ; *Constance Bommelaer*, Senior Director for Global Policy Partnerships,
> Internet Society; *Olivier Sylvain*, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham
> University;*George Sadowsky*, Member, Internet Governance Forum series, &
> Member, Board of Directors,  Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (ICANN); *Stefaan Verhulst*, Co-founder and Chief Research and
> Development Officer, the Governance Lab. It will be recorded for a New
> America Foundation audio podcast <https://soundcloud.com/newamerica>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *What: A Digital Magna Carta : Internet Governance and a New Social
> Contract <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>Where: NAF
> NYC, 199 Lafayette Street, Suite 3B, New York, NY 10012When: Thursday March
> 26 2015
> 6:30pm-8:15pmRegister: http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/
> <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>Webcast: t.b.d.
> (audio podcast <https://soundcloud.com/newamerica>)Twitter: #nanyc
> <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23NANYC>*
>
>
>
>
> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7657#respond>   See all comments
> <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7657#comments>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *​Permalink*
>
> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7657
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/3387e2e0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 14:49:16 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:49:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] EVENT 3/26: A Digital Magna Carta : Internet
 Governance and a New Social Contract
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk0_QCNidx-xjqX2oR4CuhmvOky+KwF2C7r1fkxa-yuQGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk26Kg1nO=cO5Kqftu8Bk2pOzY_JpKq3yTy5h4AR_qjrow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM9VJk0_QCNidx-xjqX2oR4CuhmvOky+KwF2C7r1fkxa-yuQGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4tbjhg+55xMAs9jRpLbGp=J6hkhEpTPyq9biohQhcJvg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Joly.
Deirdre

On 26 March 2015 at 14:37, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> I'm happy to confirm we will be livestreaming tonight's event
> http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/digitalmagnacarta
>
> Please note the Manila Principles <https://www.manilaprinciples.org/>,
> launched earlier in the week. Sure to come up.
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>
>> It was the Geneva Declaration
>> <http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html> in 2003 which
>> launched the WSIS process
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society>
>> that led to the formation of the IGF.  Tim Berners Lee, who we will not
>> forget developed the World Wide Web in Switzerland, recently called for a "Digital
>> Magna Carta
>> <http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_a_magna_carta_for_the_web>".
>> Geneva has been rumored
>> <http://domainincite.com/14390-no-icann-isnt-moving-to-switzerland> as a
>> possible future home for ICANN. ISOC already has one of its two global
>> offices there. Lastly, of course the NETmundial Initiative
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetMundial_Initiative> was founded at the
>> WEF in Davos. So it is no small wonder that the Swiss Consulate in NYC is
>> taking an interest in Internet Governance! To talk about it they are flying
>> in some great speakers, including ISOC-NY member George Sadowsky, ISOC
>> Global's Constance Bommelaer, and Diplo's Jovan Kurbalija . Permission to
>> livestream has been requested and I will confirm if it comes through. In
>> person attendees should sign up right away as it's not a big room.
>>
>>
>>  joly posted: "On Thursday March 26 2015 the Consulate General of
>> Switzerland and the New America Foundation present A Digital Magna Carta :
>> Internet Governance and a New Social Contract. A distinguished panel will
>> discuss the future of the Internet in an increasingly c"
>>
>>
>> [image: digital magna carta]
>> <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>On *Thursday March
>> 26 2015* the *Consulate General of Switzerland*
>> <http://facebook.com/SwissConsulateNewYork> and the *New America
>> Foundation* <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/> present *A Digital Magna
>> Carta : Internet Governance and a New Social Contract
>> <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>*. A distinguished
>> panel will discuss the future of the Internet in an increasingly connected,
>> globalized world. Speakers: *Dr. Jovan Kurbalija*, Director,
>> DiploFoundation, & Author, *Introduction to Internet Governance*
>> <http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/introduction-internet-governance>
>> ; *Constance Bommelaer*, Senior Director for Global Policy Partnerships,
>> Internet Society; *Olivier Sylvain*, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham
>> University;*George Sadowsky*, Member, Internet Governance Forum series,
>> & Member, Board of Directors,  Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>> Numbers (ICANN); *Stefaan Verhulst*, Co-founder and Chief Research and
>> Development Officer, the Governance Lab. It will be recorded for a New
>> America Foundation audio podcast <https://soundcloud.com/newamerica>.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *What: A Digital Magna Carta : Internet Governance and a New Social
>> Contract <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>Where: NAF
>> NYC, 199 Lafayette Street, Suite 3B, New York, NY 10012When: Thursday March
>> 26 2015
>> 6:30pm-8:15pmRegister: http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/
>> <http://www.newamerica.org/nyc/a-digital-magna-carta/>Webcast: t.b.d.
>> (audio podcast <https://soundcloud.com/newamerica>)Twitter: #nanyc
>> <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23NANYC>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7657#respond>   See all comments
>> <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7657#comments>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *​Permalink*
>>
>> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7657
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/0d278088/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Mar 26 18:40:23 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:40:23 +0800
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5Bbestbits=5D_=5BIP=5D_Study?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=3A_Some_Popular_Android_Apps_Tracking_User_Location_Onc?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?e_Every_Three_Minutes_=96_Consumerist?=
In-Reply-To: <f56cbc1b97194a158f36d498324b518b@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <2DA6F544-C32E-406A-8C08-F247FEEB6E7A@gmail.com> <f56cbc1b97194a158f36d498324b518b@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <A98B12BA-9D6E-4617-8CBC-5E55AE3D614E@eff.org>

On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:01 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> FYI and congrats Jeremy & colleagues on release of Manila Principles on Internet Liability'!

Many thanks Lee, though it's Manila Principles on *Intermediary* Liability - somehow a typo crept into that initial version of the press release, oops!  For those who will be at IGF or other Internet governance events, you can find out more as we do a little road trip with the Manila Principles.  Here are some more links:

	• The Manila Principles: https://www.manilaprinciples.org 
	• EFF’s press release: https://eff.org/press/releases/international-coalition-launches-manila-principles-protect-freedom-expression-worldwide
	• Some press: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/rights-groups-want-to-take-isp-safe-harbors-worldwide/, http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/the-noose-tightens-on-freedom-of-speech-on-the-internet
	• EFF blogs: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/indian-victory-bears-out-need-manila-principles, https://eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/call-canada-fix-rightsholder-abuse-its-copyright-notice-system
	• Manila Principles mailing list: https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/manilaprinciples

This was a collective effort in every sense of the word and I would like to shout out to CIS India, Article 19, Derechos Digitales, KICTANET, Open Net Korea, too many others to name, and also Access for letting us run as a pre-event to RightsCon. We would love those who agree with the principles to endorse them, which can be done at https://www.manilaprinciples.org/endorse.

-- 
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 ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 26 19:16:59 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:16:59 +1100
Subject: [governance] FYI
Message-ID: <0D03974EE27549F69B14860438A9068F@Toshiba>

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/571370/tech-companies-call-us-end-bulk-collection-metadata/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/2d89433f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Mar 26 20:10:35 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:10:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] FYI
In-Reply-To: <0D03974EE27549F69B14860438A9068F@Toshiba>
References: <0D03974EE27549F69B14860438A9068F@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4maf0XQus1msMccPnrLLndm0xnm9khDuzZ=ARQ6wL_DA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Ian.

On 26 March 2015 at 19:16, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/571370/tech-companies-call-us-end-bulk-collection-metadata/
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150326/2003f14f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From azrak_khan at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 27 00:42:28 2015
From: azrak_khan at hotmail.com (Arzak Khan)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:42:28 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political
 Economy of Internet Freedom
In-Reply-To:  <CAMz5XN5KKXbzGR97AGCFJa_ipsVoSSZSR0HdUO5HDmzGWELhzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D139727A.2DFFB%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
 <CAMz5XN4owGAfcW6uhBkdjcqEie122OZvEYGhwOuMZy6M+Lm5zQ@mail.gmail.com>,<551433F1.9090405@gmail.com>,<CAMz5XN5KKXbzGR97AGCFJa_ipsVoSSZSR0HdUO5HDmzGWELhzg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BLU180-W405DAD717035BF789FEDFCFF090@phx.gbl>

This is something that has been very frustrating for some years now when you really want access  some piece of marvelously written information like this one but you are unable to do so. Like Deirdre said something we from Global South need to make a fuss about. 
Best,
Arzak  

From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:47:53 -0400
To: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com
CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of Internet Freedom

Information is sadly only really free if you live in the first world.Certainly not in Saint Lucia where I live, and apparently not in Bolivia either.But there are still many lucky people associated with northern institutions who have access - the heads up was for them.I was disappointed too.Perhaps "Access for us too" is something we should begin to make a fuss about?Best wishesDeirdre
On 26 March 2015 at 12:29, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:


Dear Deirdre, Becky and all



> Might be of interest to some…



But this lists are not marketplaces for selling any things. If you don't have a link for a free download, it is not really useful.



many greetings, willi

La Paz, Bolivia





Am 26/03/2015 um 09:15 a.m. schrieb Deirdre Williams:


For your information.

Deirdre



---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Becky Lentz <roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca>

Date: 26 March 2015 at 08:25

Subject: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of Internet

Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids Western hegemony

To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net





Might be of interest to some…



*http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw <http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw>*



Discussions surrounding the role of the internet in society are dominated

by terms such as *internet freedom*, *surveillance*, *cybersecurity,* and,

most prolifically, *cyber war*. But behind the rhetoric of cyber war is an

ongoing state-centered battle for control of information resources. Shawn

Powers and Michael Jablonski conceptualize this *real* cyber war as the

utilization of digital networks for geopolitical purposes, including covert

attacks against another state’s electronic systems, but also, and more

importantly, the variety of ways the internet is used to further a state’s

economic and military agendas.



Moving beyond debates on the democratic value of new and emerging

information technologies, *The Real Cyber War* focuses on political,

economic, and geopolitical factors driving internet freedom policies, in

particular the U.S. State Department's emerging doctrine in support of a

universal freedom to connect. They argue that efforts to create a universal

internet built upon Western legal, political, and social preferences is

driven by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than the

humanitarian and democratic ideals that typically accompany related policy

discourse. In fact, the freedom-to-connect movement is intertwined with

broader efforts to structure global society in ways that favor American and

Western cultures, economies, and governments….



____________________________________________________________

You received this message as 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:

     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


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/c25e3a52/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Fri Mar 27 03:12:17 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:12:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5Bbestbits=5D_=5BIP=5D_Study?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=3A_Some_Popular_Android_Apps_Tracking_User_Location_Onc?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?e_Every_Three_Minutes_=96_Consumerist?=
In-Reply-To: <A98B12BA-9D6E-4617-8CBC-5E55AE3D614E@eff.org>
References: <2DA6F544-C32E-406A-8C08-F247FEEB6E7A@gmail.com> <f56cbc1b97194a158f36d498324b518b@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <A98B12BA-9D6E-4617-8CBC-5E55AE3D614E@eff.org>
Message-ID: <900DD1FC-24DA-4BD8-8E97-1A3A91040EC8@consensus.pro>

Jeremy, and all who are a part of making this happen, it is simply superb. I'm asking my members if IDEA can become a signatory, and I shall certainly become one myself.

On 26 Mar 2015, at 23:40, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:01 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> FYI and congrats Jeremy & colleagues on release of Manila Principles on Internet Liability'!
> 
> Many thanks Lee, though it's Manila Principles on *Intermediary* Liability - somehow a typo crept into that initial version of the press release, oops!  For those who will be at IGF or other Internet governance events, you can find out more as we do a little road trip with the Manila Principles.  Here are some more links:
> 
> 	• The Manila Principles: https://www.manilaprinciples.org 
> 	• EFF’s press release: https://eff.org/press/releases/international-coalition-launches-manila-principles-protect-freedom-expression-worldwide
> 	• Some press: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/rights-groups-want-to-take-isp-safe-harbors-worldwide/, http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/the-noose-tightens-on-freedom-of-speech-on-the-internet
> 	• EFF blogs: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/indian-victory-bears-out-need-manila-principles, https://eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/call-canada-fix-rightsholder-abuse-its-copyright-notice-system
> 	• Manila Principles mailing list: https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/manilaprinciples
> 
> This was a collective effort in every sense of the word and I would like to shout out to CIS India, Article 19, Derechos Digitales, KICTANET, Open Net Korea, too many others to name, and also Access for letting us run as a pre-event to RightsCon. We would love those who agree with the principles to endorse them, which can be done at https://www.manilaprinciples.org/endorse.
> 
> -- 
> 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 ::
> 
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> 
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
> 
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/747706b0/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From admin at alkasir.com  Fri Mar 27 07:06:43 2015
From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:06:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
Message-ID: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>

/*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/

Dear friends and colleagues,

Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the
intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many
news and dissident websites.

Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404

This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to
formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in
English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our
Facebook page here:
https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/

I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any
other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the
text freely on your platforms.

Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with by
those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the confidence
of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use it
effectively.

Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in
Yemen.

Sincerely,

Walid Al-Saqaf
Chair, ISOC-Yemen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/cfb7ad5b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Mar 27 07:51:50 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:51:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] BIO & Internet Governance
References: <0D03974EE27549F69B14860438A9068F@Toshiba>
 <CAMz5XN4maf0XQus1msMccPnrLLndm0xnm9khDuzZ=ARQ6wL_DA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642CD5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI

http://stegano.net/BCSN2015/

Isn´t this an interesting challenge also for the IGC?

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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Mar 27 08:35:40 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:35:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] BIO & Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642CD5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <0D03974EE27549F69B14860438A9068F@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4maf0XQus1msMccPnrLLndm0xnm9khDuzZ=ARQ6wL_DA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642CD5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6ieR94GnfzXAQQc=RQ_Kx4Ua7HCKy+VEWNYCcm3WsSwg@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Wolfgang.
IGC currently has many interesting challenges :-)
Speaking locally I wish someone would work out a really efficient way to
regulate the mosquito.
Joking apart, it does seem that the internet is re-integrating the
specialist areas.
"Inter-disciplinary" looks like the way to go. But to do that we need to
turn round and look outside our own particular box. We need to be able to
think in broader dimensions.
Are there IGC members who are "into" this particular area?
Can they share with the rest of us a little more about it?
Deirdre

On 27 March 2015 at 07:51, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> FYI
>
> http://stegano.net/BCSN2015/
>
> Isn´t this an interesting challenge also for the IGC?
>
> Wolfgang
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/9aaad0ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at consensus.pro  Fri Mar 27 10:11:00 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:11:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5E6D411D-84EF-4307-B818-5980F5478505@consensus.pro>

Dear Walid,

Thank you very much for sharing this - I am sure that everyone else here is greatly worried by the troubles facing your country. I will be happy to disseminate this and if you can think of anything else that the Internet policy community can do to help, please ask.

> On 27 Mar 2015, at 12:06, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> wrote:
> 
> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
> 
> Dear friends and colleagues,
> 
> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many news and dissident websites.
> 
> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404 <http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404>
> 
> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our Facebook page here:
> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/ <https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/>
> 
> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the text freely on your platforms.
> 
> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use it effectively.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in Yemen.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/bf901559/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/bf901559/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From admin at alkasir.com  Fri Mar 27 10:20:47 2015
From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:20:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <5E6D411D-84EF-4307-B818-5980F5478505@consensus.pro>
References: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5E6D411D-84EF-4307-B818-5980F5478505@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAKJSUiy0vU7-svEmWiG0snOjExr=CO7c4QJ18nYHGdwHfCNFug@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Nick,

It is you and others who supported us whom I wish to thank. We need all the
support we could get to address this on slaughter of Internet freedom in
Yemen.

Sincerely,

Walid Al-Saqaf
On Mar 27, 2015 3:11 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> Dear Walid,
>
> Thank you very much for sharing this - I am sure that everyone else here
> is greatly worried by the troubles facing your country. I will be happy to
> disseminate this and if you can think of anything else that the Internet
> policy community can do to help, please ask.
>
> On 27 Mar 2015, at 12:06, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> wrote:
>
> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>
> Dear friends and colleagues,
>
> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the
> intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many
> news and dissident websites.
>
> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>
> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to
> formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in
> English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our
> Facebook page here:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>
> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any
> other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the
> text freely on your platforms.
>
> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with
> by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the
> confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use
> it effectively.
>
> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in
> Yemen.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/59bc0e54/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From qshatti at gmail.com  Fri Mar 27 11:16:47 2015
From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:16:47 +0300
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAKJSUiy0vU7-svEmWiG0snOjExr=CO7c4QJ18nYHGdwHfCNFug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5E6D411D-84EF-4307-B818-5980F5478505@consensus.pro>
	<CAKJSUiy0vU7-svEmWiG0snOjExr=CO7c4QJ18nYHGdwHfCNFug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC2SYrND7Q6N+Qy32rA=HVvYTq=WU276320+Zr5guTnzRcta1w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Walid:
We share your concern and we are deeply worried about the Internet
situation in Yemen. We hope such measures will not hold. Currently some of
the blocked site can be accessed through free VPN services .

We Support you all at ISOC Yemen.

Best Regards,,

Qusai AlShatti

On Friday, March 27, 2015, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> wrote:

> Dear Nick,
>
> It is you and others who supported us whom I wish to thank. We need all
> the support we could get to address this on slaughter of Internet freedom
> in Yemen.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> On Mar 27, 2015 3:11 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at consensus.pro
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nashton at consensus.pro');>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Walid,
>>
>> Thank you very much for sharing this - I am sure that everyone else here
>> is greatly worried by the troubles facing your country. I will be happy to
>> disseminate this and if you can think of anything else that the Internet
>> policy community can do to help, please ask.
>>
>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 12:06, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','admin at alkasir.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>>
>> Dear friends and colleagues,
>>
>> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the
>> intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many
>> news and dissident websites.
>>
>> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
>> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>>
>> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to
>> formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in
>> English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our
>> Facebook page here:
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>>
>> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any
>> other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the
>> text freely on your platforms.
>>
>> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with
>> by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the
>> confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use
>> it effectively.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in
>> Yemen.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Walid Al-Saqaf
>> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/7e9a15c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From admin at alkasir.com  Fri Mar 27 11:21:30 2015
From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:21:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAC2SYrND7Q6N+Qy32rA=HVvYTq=WU276320+Zr5guTnzRcta1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5E6D411D-84EF-4307-B818-5980F5478505@consensus.pro>
	<CAKJSUiy0vU7-svEmWiG0snOjExr=CO7c4QJ18nYHGdwHfCNFug@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC2SYrND7Q6N+Qy32rA=HVvYTq=WU276320+Zr5guTnzRcta1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKJSUixFFaS8p-dbRAuzGTsaOOQqe932n_wO6EjK8QPFRhC1Fg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Qusai,

Thank you my good friend. Your support is highly valued and we hope the
whole conflict would be over soon.

Best.

Walid Al-Saqaf
On Mar 27, 2015 4:16 PM, "Qusai AlShatti" <qshatti at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Walid:
> We share your concern and we are deeply worried about the Internet
> situation in Yemen. We hope such measures will not hold. Currently some of
> the blocked site can be accessed through free VPN services .
>
> We Support you all at ISOC Yemen.
>
> Best Regards,,
>
> Qusai AlShatti
>
> On Friday, March 27, 2015, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Nick,
>>
>> It is you and others who supported us whom I wish to thank. We need all
>> the support we could get to address this on slaughter of Internet freedom
>> in Yemen.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Walid Al-Saqaf
>> On Mar 27, 2015 3:11 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at consensus.pro>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Walid,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for sharing this - I am sure that everyone else here
>>> is greatly worried by the troubles facing your country. I will be happy to
>>> disseminate this and if you can think of anything else that the Internet
>>> policy community can do to help, please ask.
>>>
>>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 12:06, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>>>
>>> Dear friends and colleagues,
>>>
>>> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the
>>> intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many
>>> news and dissident websites.
>>>
>>> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
>>> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>>>
>>> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to
>>> formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in
>>> English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our
>>> Facebook page here:
>>>
>>> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any
>>> other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the
>>> text freely on your platforms.
>>>
>>> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with
>>> by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the
>>> confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use
>>> it effectively.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in
>>> Yemen.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Walid Al-Saqaf
>>> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/ade309a3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ymshana2003 at gmail.com  Fri Mar 27 11:36:22 2015
From: ymshana2003 at gmail.com (ymshana2003)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:36:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
Message-ID: <6r517cbexh10gx8kv75mymj6.1427470582774@email.android.com>

Yaa Walid,
Thank you for this update as to what a political conflict has touched everything in your country. 

We are following news through the common media houses about the actions taken by friends of Yemeni to stabilise the situation ..soon.

As it is during  wars, infrastructure is the first target and its seizure saves double-purpose. These days,communication infrastructure suffers first hence the capturing of major ISPs and other service providers. I am not a technical person but my thought is to use the expensive satellite link perioducally in order to access the Internet.?
That is my feable and maybe useless suggestion. Do you have anything like Imarsat equipment somewhere?

A common wish is for your health and safety while the defence and security are doing their best to solve the situation.
Kind regards
Yassin



Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> 
Date:27/03/2015  13:06  (GMT+02:00) 
To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under assault 

/*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/

Dear friends and colleagues,

Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many news and dissident websites. 

Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404

This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our Facebook page here:
https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/

I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the text freely on your platforms.

Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use it effectively.

Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in Yemen.

Sincerely,

Walid Al-Saqaf
Chair, ISOC-Yemen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/6e68a874/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Mar 27 11:47:22 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:47:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1H4pbaZNTUoD7sCtoNfyYjj23jxyG6QnBb02Z991=+Vw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> wrote:

> published on our Facebook page


​Yep. I keep in touch with my Yemeni friends via fb. As long as they don't
block that....

​



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/a9f96427/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From admin at alkasir.com  Fri Mar 27 14:57:55 2015
From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:57:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <6r517cbexh10gx8kv75mymj6.1427470582774@email.android.com>
References: <6r517cbexh10gx8kv75mymj6.1427470582774@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAKJSUiw-aym0zzfmvWVhSQ7bP0Z06TENPKEDwKiKXw+2KOi0CA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Yassin,

It looks like it is a wise thing to keep the satellite Internet option
available in case the whole Internet goes down intentionally or not.

I am in Sweden now but travel to Yemen part of the year. When I was there
last year, I noticed that satellite Internet was available but extremely
expensive. Yet in times of war, it is access to the world  that counts the
most. I'll proceed to ask around for the best satellite Internet deals.

If there's a service provider that can provide discounted or better free
service to ISOC-Yemen or other civil society entities for emergency use,
that would be great.

So far we don't need it, but as was the case with other countries in the
past a total Internet shutdown should not come as a surprise.

Best.

Walid Al-Saqaf
On Mar 27, 2015 4:36 PM, "ymshana2003" <ymshana2003 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yaa Walid,
> Thank you for this update as to what a political conflict has touched
> everything in your country.
>
> We are following news through the common media houses about the actions
> taken by friends of Yemeni to stabilise the situation ..soon.
>
> As it is during  wars, infrastructure is the first target and its seizure
> saves double-purpose. These days,communication infrastructure suffers first
> hence the capturing of major ISPs and other service providers. I am not a
> technical person but my thought is to use the expensive satellite link
> perioducally in order to access the Internet.?
> That is my feable and maybe useless suggestion. Do you have anything like
> Imarsat equipment somewhere?
>
> A common wish is for your health and safety while the defence and security
> are doing their best to solve the situation.
> Kind regards
> Yassin
>
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Walid Al-Saqaf
> Date:27/03/2015 13:06 (GMT+02:00)
> To: governance
> Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
> assault
>
> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>
> Dear friends and colleagues,
>
> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the
> intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many
> news and dissident websites.
>
> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>
> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to
> formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in
> English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our
> Facebook page here:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>
> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any
> other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the
> text freely on your platforms.
>
> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with
> by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the
> confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use
> it effectively.
>
> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in
> Yemen.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/69a1dabc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Mar 27 15:21:12 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:21:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAKJSUiw-aym0zzfmvWVhSQ7bP0Z06TENPKEDwKiKXw+2KOi0CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6r517cbexh10gx8kv75mymj6.1427470582774@email.android.com> <CAKJSUiw-aym0zzfmvWVhSQ7bP0Z06TENPKEDwKiKXw+2KOi0CA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN50BM+OjY8LwGZEdSMfWMp+y--uDikb5wKt30N-nQE27A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Walid,
After Cyclone Pam in the Pacific hit Vanuatu it sounds as if the cell phone
towers were knocked down, and the internet knocked out. Different cause but
the same result.
There was talk about satellite connections then. And of course some of the
more remote Pacific communities are dependent on satellite connections
anyway.
Would it be worth contacting Sala in Fiji or Maureen in the Cook Islands to
ask if they or any of their contacts have helpful information?
Write back to me off-list if you need introductions/addresses.
Best wishes
Deirdre

On 27 March 2015 at 14:57, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> wrote:

> Dear Yassin,
>
> It looks like it is a wise thing to keep the satellite Internet option
> available in case the whole Internet goes down intentionally or not.
>
> I am in Sweden now but travel to Yemen part of the year. When I was there
> last year, I noticed that satellite Internet was available but extremely
> expensive. Yet in times of war, it is access to the world  that counts the
> most. I'll proceed to ask around for the best satellite Internet deals.
>
> If there's a service provider that can provide discounted or better free
> service to ISOC-Yemen or other civil society entities for emergency use,
> that would be great.
>
> So far we don't need it, but as was the case with other countries in the
> past a total Internet shutdown should not come as a surprise.
>
> Best.
>
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> On Mar 27, 2015 4:36 PM, "ymshana2003" <ymshana2003 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yaa Walid,
>> Thank you for this update as to what a political conflict has touched
>> everything in your country.
>>
>> We are following news through the common media houses about the actions
>> taken by friends of Yemeni to stabilise the situation ..soon.
>>
>> As it is during  wars, infrastructure is the first target and its seizure
>> saves double-purpose. These days,communication infrastructure suffers first
>> hence the capturing of major ISPs and other service providers. I am not a
>> technical person but my thought is to use the expensive satellite link
>> perioducally in order to access the Internet.?
>> That is my feable and maybe useless suggestion. Do you have anything like
>> Imarsat equipment somewhere?
>>
>> A common wish is for your health and safety while the defence and
>> security are doing their best to solve the situation.
>> Kind regards
>> Yassin
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Walid Al-Saqaf
>> Date:27/03/2015 13:06 (GMT+02:00)
>> To: governance
>> Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
>> assault
>>
>> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>>
>> Dear friends and colleagues,
>>
>> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the
>> intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many
>> news and dissident websites.
>>
>> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
>> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>>
>> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to
>> formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in
>> English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our
>> Facebook page here:
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>>
>> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any
>> other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the
>> text freely on your platforms.
>>
>> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with
>> by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the
>> confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use
>> it effectively.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in
>> Yemen.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Walid Al-Saqaf
>> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/20bde678/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dafalla at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 27 16:24:21 2015
From: dafalla at yahoo.com (dafalla at yahoo.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:24:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAKJSUiy0vU7-svEmWiG0snOjExr=CO7c4QJ18nYHGdwHfCNFug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1427487861.5342.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web160104.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>


Dear Waleed

  I support and I am so warry  about the situation of your country. 

Thanks

Hago Dafalla

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/7c3fbe5d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 27 17:56:16 2015
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 06:56:16 +0900
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhFiWCGDGfwqz31V-9x1g-8NSZA2kGsMrmEzACh=+C=Sg@mail.gmail.com>

​Dear Walis,

Thank you so much for sharing the situation in Yemen.
To tell you the truth, Yemen is so far from Tokyo that few media cover, and
we
are not at all aware of what is going on there.

You reminded us a very important fact. Thank you again, and please keep
reminding us.

best,

izumi


​

2015-03-27 20:06 GMT+09:00 Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com>:

> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>
> Dear friends and colleagues,
>
> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the
> intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many
> news and dissident websites.
>
> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>
> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to
> formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in
> English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our
> Facebook page here:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>
> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any
> other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the
> text freely on your platforms.
>
> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with
> by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the
> confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use
> it effectively.
>
> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in
> Yemen.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150328/1cf95d1f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From admin at alkasir.com  Fri Mar 27 18:19:27 2015
From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 23:19:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKhFiWCGDGfwqz31V-9x1g-8NSZA2kGsMrmEzACh=+C=Sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+YNoKhFiWCGDGfwqz31V-9x1g-8NSZA2kGsMrmEzACh=+C=Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKJSUiyns-4due1gd2PV_1PnNKjvHM_-iJbfSmFT4OzFR181Jg@mail.gmail.com>

Indeed Izumi,

I appreciate your concern and interest in learning about what is going on.
It's useful to be aware of the many Internet challenges facing developing
and unstable countries around the world.

Here's a link to a recent CPJ report about the overall situation of the
media including websites in Yemen:
https://www.cpj.org/2015/03/media-outlets-raided-and-banned-as-conflict-spiral.php

Sincerely,

Walid

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

Walid Al-Saqaf
Founder & Administrator
alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship
https://alkasir.com <walid.al-saqaf at oru.se>

PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> ​Dear Walis,
>
> Thank you so much for sharing the situation in Yemen.
> To tell you the truth, Yemen is so far from Tokyo that few media cover,
> and we
> are not at all aware of what is going on there.
>
> You reminded us a very important fact. Thank you again, and please keep
> reminding us.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
>
> ​
>
> 2015-03-27 20:06 GMT+09:00 Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com>:
>
>> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>>
>> Dear friends and colleagues,
>>
>> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the
>> intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many
>> news and dissident websites.
>>
>> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
>> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>>
>> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to
>> formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in
>> English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our
>> Facebook page here:
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>>
>> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any
>> other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the
>> text freely on your platforms.
>>
>> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with
>> by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the
>> confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use
>> it effectively.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in
>> Yemen.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Walid Al-Saqaf
>> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/cb0932b9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From judith at jhellerstein.com  Fri Mar 27 18:24:34 2015
From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:24:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAKJSUiyns-4due1gd2PV_1PnNKjvHM_-iJbfSmFT4OzFR181Jg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+YNoKhFiWCGDGfwqz31V-9x1g-8NSZA2kGsMrmEzACh=+C=Sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJSUiyns-4due1gd2PV_1PnNKjvHM_-iJbfSmFT4OzFR181Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5515D8A2.7050400@jhellerstein.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150327/8c52156b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From charlespmok at gmail.com  Fri Mar 27 21:16:38 2015
From: charlespmok at gmail.com (Charles Mok (gmail))
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 09:16:38 +0800
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <5515D8A2.7050400@jhellerstein.com>
References: <CAKJSUixKg=ejV63q9cdTJwkazDpu6LvOYZ_hLKXGWu8a6Y15VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+YNoKhFiWCGDGfwqz31V-9x1g-8NSZA2kGsMrmEzACh=+C=Sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJSUiyns-4due1gd2PV_1PnNKjvHM_-iJbfSmFT4OzFR181Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5515D8A2.7050400@jhellerstein.com>
Message-ID: <CAHvfLm11bWWcOv55U+HD2FUKOzr7ughsQ44aJ+jCG4eq+MpFqA@mail.gmail.com>

Shared and support. Let the world know, and care!

Charles


On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com
> wrote:

>  HI Walid,
>
> I shared your note on Facebook and Linked in to all.  I really hope all is
> resolved quickly and that all your family, others in ISOC Yemen and others
> whom I have met at ICANN from Yemen are well
>
> 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 3/27/2015 6:19 PM, Walid Al-Saqaf wrote:
>
> Indeed Izumi,
>
>  I appreciate your concern and interest in learning about what is going
> on. It's useful to be aware of the many Internet challenges facing
> developing and unstable countries around the world.
>
>  Here's a link to a recent CPJ report about the overall situation of the
> media including websites in Yemen:
> https://www.cpj.org/2015/03/media-outlets-raided-and-banned-as-conflict-spiral.php
>
>  Sincerely,
>
> Walid
>
> -----------------
>
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> Founder & Administrator
> alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship
> https://alkasir.com
>
>  PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>
>>  ​Dear Walis,
>>
>>  Thank you so much for sharing the situation in Yemen.
>> To tell you the truth, Yemen is so far from Tokyo that few media cover,
>> and we
>> are not at all aware of what is going on there.
>>
>>  You reminded us a very important fact. Thank you again, and please keep
>> reminding us.
>>
>>  best,
>>
>>  izumi
>>
>>
>>  ​
>>
>>  2015-03-27 20:06 GMT+09:00 Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com>:
>>
>>>   /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>>>
>>>  Dear friends and colleagues,
>>>
>>>  Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the
>>> intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many
>>> news and dissident websites.
>>>
>>>  Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
>>> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>>>
>>>  This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to
>>> formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in
>>> English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our
>>> Facebook page here:
>>>
>>> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>>>
>>>  I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any
>>> other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the
>>> text freely on your platforms.
>>>
>>>  Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered
>>> with by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the
>>> confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use
>>> it effectively.
>>>
>>>  Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times
>>> in Yemen.
>>>
>>>  Sincerely,
>>>
>>>  Walid Al-Saqaf
>>> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>>>
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>> Japan
>> www.anr.org
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150328/b6d7903a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com  Sat Mar 28 07:25:27 2015
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (baudouin.schombe)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:25:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
Message-ID: <x8qr7osynfk0n66qixnp1ysg.1427541927234@email.android.com>

Informtion shared in main mailing list in dr Congo
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G Android device

"Charles Mok (gmail)" <charlespmok at gmail.com> a écrit :

>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150328/bdf6ed07/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 28 18:56:28 2015
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:56:28 +1200
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAKJSUiw-aym0zzfmvWVhSQ7bP0Z06TENPKEDwKiKXw+2KOi0CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6r517cbexh10gx8kv75mymj6.1427470582774@email.android.com> <CAKJSUiw-aym0zzfmvWVhSQ7bP0Z06TENPKEDwKiKXw+2KOi0CA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <939DA0CB-3AC2-491F-A61E-3005457EFEA8@gmail.com>

Hi Walid,

We have heard reports that US backed Yemen leader fled to Saudi Arabia due to intrusion by militants so conflict, security and crisis is serious in Yemen. It would be interesting to have ISOC Yemen or the National NOG to do an assessment or scoping assessment of status of ICT during this crisis and a list of recommendations or calls for assistance which will help the wider community to proffer soluions.

For instance, does Yemen solely rely on satellite or is their fibre on the ground etc?

Well wishes,
Sala


Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 28, 2015, at 6:57 AM, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Yassin,
> 
> It looks like it is a wise thing to keep the satellite Internet option available in case the whole Internet goes down intentionally or not.
> 
> I am in Sweden now but travel to Yemen part of the year. When I was there last year, I noticed that satellite Internet was available but extremely expensive. Yet in times of war, it is access to the world  that counts the most. I'll proceed to ask around for the best satellite Internet deals.
> 
> If there's a service provider that can provide discounted or better free service to ISOC-Yemen or other civil society entities for emergency use, that would be great.
> 
> So far we don't need it, but as was the case with other countries in the past a total Internet shutdown should not come as a surprise.
> 
> Best.
> 
> Walid Al-Saqaf
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2015 4:36 PM, "ymshana2003" <ymshana2003 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yaa Walid,
>> Thank you for this update as to what a political conflict has touched everything in your country. 
>> 
>> We are following news through the common media houses about the actions taken by friends of Yemeni to stabilise the situation ..soon.
>> 
>> As it is during  wars, infrastructure is the first target and its seizure saves double-purpose. These days,communication infrastructure suffers first hence the capturing of major ISPs and other service providers. I am not a technical person but my thought is to use the expensive satellite link perioducally in order to access the Internet.?
>> That is my feable and maybe useless suggestion. Do you have anything like Imarsat equipment somewhere?
>> 
>> A common wish is for your health and safety while the defence and security are doing their best to solve the situation.
>> Kind regards
>> Yassin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Walid Al-Saqaf 
>> Date:27/03/2015 13:06 (GMT+02:00) 
>> To: governance 
>> Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under assault 
>> 
>> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>> 
>> Dear friends and colleagues,
>> 
>> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many news and dissident websites. 
>> 
>> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
>> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>> 
>> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our Facebook page here:
>> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>> 
>> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the text freely on your platforms.
>> 
>> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use it effectively.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in Yemen.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Walid Al-Saqaf
>> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150329/554c2c22/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 28 19:09:22 2015
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:09:22 +1200
Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under
 assault
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN50BM+OjY8LwGZEdSMfWMp+y--uDikb5wKt30N-nQE27A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6r517cbexh10gx8kv75mymj6.1427470582774@email.android.com> <CAKJSUiw-aym0zzfmvWVhSQ7bP0Z06TENPKEDwKiKXw+2KOi0CA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN50BM+OjY8LwGZEdSMfWMp+y--uDikb5wKt30N-nQE27A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0B0C4686-7644-4543-84AE-92CC48D8C4C9@gmail.com>

Thanks Deirdre,

For a bit of context, Cyclone Pam which is a category 5 cyclone wreaked much devastation in three countries, namely Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

In Vanuatu, telecommunications networks was severely affected, that is which disrupted communications. In the Pacific, Tonga is the only country that has ratified the Tampere Convention. Whilst emergency equipment was dispatched from abroad, stakeholders like ITU which had prepared relief well before the cyclone was delayed for about a week. 

The University of the South Pacific being a regional University was able to offer its network (USPNet) which was co-opted by the Vanuatu Government that enabled communications in rural Vanuatu in some areas such as Malekula as well as on the main island. USPNet was also used to effectively land planes which enabled relief to occur seamlessly. 

In terms of access issues during times of civil conflict, that is something that is slightly different. But access is still important. In political circumstances such as what is happening in Yemen, I can only wonder at the disruption in comms.

With every best wish,
Sala

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 28, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Walid,
> After Cyclone Pam in the Pacific hit Vanuatu it sounds as if the cell phone towers were knocked down, and the internet knocked out. Different cause but the same result.
> There was talk about satellite connections then. And of course some of the more remote Pacific communities are dependent on satellite connections anyway.
> Would it be worth contacting Sala in Fiji or Maureen in the Cook Islands to ask if they or any of their contacts have helpful information?
> Write back to me off-list if you need introductions/addresses.
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
> 
>> On 27 March 2015 at 14:57, Walid Al-Saqaf <admin at alkasir.com> wrote:
>> Dear Yassin,
>> 
>> It looks like it is a wise thing to keep the satellite Internet option available in case the whole Internet goes down intentionally or not.
>> 
>> I am in Sweden now but travel to Yemen part of the year. When I was there last year, I noticed that satellite Internet was available but extremely expensive. Yet in times of war, it is access to the world  that counts the most. I'll proceed to ask around for the best satellite Internet deals.
>> 
>> If there's a service provider that can provide discounted or better free service to ISOC-Yemen or other civil society entities for emergency use, that would be great.
>> 
>> So far we don't need it, but as was the case with other countries in the past a total Internet shutdown should not come as a surprise.
>> 
>> Best.
>> 
>> Walid Al-Saqaf
>> 
>>> On Mar 27, 2015 4:36 PM, "ymshana2003" <ymshana2003 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yaa Walid,
>>> Thank you for this update as to what a political conflict has touched everything in your country. 
>>> 
>>> We are following news through the common media houses about the actions taken by friends of Yemeni to stabilise the situation ..soon.
>>> 
>>> As it is during  wars, infrastructure is the first target and its seizure saves double-purpose. These days,communication infrastructure suffers first hence the capturing of major ISPs and other service providers. I am not a technical person but my thought is to use the expensive satellite link perioducally in order to access the Internet.?
>>> That is my feable and maybe useless suggestion. Do you have anything like Imarsat equipment somewhere?
>>> 
>>> A common wish is for your health and safety while the defence and security are doing their best to solve the situation.
>>> Kind regards
>>> Yassin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Walid Al-Saqaf 
>>> Date:27/03/2015 13:06 (GMT+02:00) 
>>> To: governance 
>>> Subject: [governance] Your support is needed: Internet in Yemen is under assault 
>>> 
>>> /*** Apologies for cross-posting ***/
>>> 
>>> Dear friends and colleagues,
>>> 
>>> Those of you who followed the news lately may have heard about the intensifying conflict in Yemen, which has led to the blocking of of many news and dissident websites. 
>>> 
>>> Here's a story reflecting some of what happened:
>>> http://www.albawaba.com/news/anti-houthi-websites-blocked-yemen-674404
>>> 
>>> This is unprecedented and unacceptable. It obliged us as ISOC-Yemen to formally launch a campaign starting with the below statement (both in English and Arabic), which is to be widely circulated and published on our Facebook page here:
>>> https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ye/photos/a.366179743512967.1073741827.183351058462504/641852185945720/
>>> 
>>> I'd appreciate your support by sharing, liking, commenting or take any other actions you can to help our campaign. You can also re-publish the text freely on your platforms.
>>> 
>>> Our intention is to stress that Internet access should not tampered with by those involved in the conflict because it severely affects the confidence of end-users in the Internet as a whole and their ability to use it effectively.
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance for your support during those very difficult times in Yemen.
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>> Walid Al-Saqaf
>>> Chair, ISOC-Yemen
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150329/18e5deea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Mar 29 04:31:59 2015
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 14:01:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] Move to regulate skype and whatsup in India.
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0G5atuvGZjicaxd_sHeqkK0YqvyOSr8q2bOmdnXNZAMGg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/trai-seeks-to-regulate-ott-players-like-skype-viber-whatsapp-and-google-talk/

On similar proposals in other countries,  how did the Internet user respond?

Sivasubramanian M




-- 
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150329/9de22954/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Mar 30 11:50:27 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:50:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political
 Economy of Internet Freedom
In-Reply-To: <BLU180-W405DAD717035BF789FEDFCFF090@phx.gbl>
References: <D139727A.2DFFB%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca> <CAMz5XN4owGAfcW6uhBkdjcqEie122OZvEYGhwOuMZy6M+Lm5zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <551433F1.9090405@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN5KKXbzGR97AGCFJa_ipsVoSSZSR0HdUO5HDmzGWELhzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BLU180-W405DAD717035BF789FEDFCFF090@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7s5tpQu4R4bnKV1XPkDOVw5WrYrDBM_a8gHWCmH2GVuw@mail.gmail.com>

(Apologies for cross-posting)

Further to our conversation last week - I have a contact who is a librarian
working at a small academic library here with some access to the electronic
collections of the main university library. She was unable to locate this
book, but sent me what she did find, a 29 page excerpt which includes the
table of contents and the introductory chapter. I'll share that with anyone
who is interested but it's a large pdf file (10 MB) probably because it
includes the cover which I haven't worked out yet how to remove, so please
contact me off-list.

Meanwhile, answering Arzak, yes I wish there was something we could do. The
Open Educational Resources movement is making a lot of resources available.
Authors themselves frequently share. As authors ourselves we can consider
refusing to accept the draconian copyright requirements of some publishers,
although for academics working in a "must publish" environment this could
be a very hard decision. We can help to build towards Creative Commons
<http://creativecommons.org/> as a basic standard for publishing by
supporting it.

Most of all we can continue to remind people of the inequalities that still
obtain in our "global village". It is sometimes very difficult to
comprehend what "everyday life" is, as seen through the eyes of someone
living in a different part of the world from where one lives oneself.

Please let me know (off list) if you are interested in the file and I'll
forward it to you. Better yet, explain to me how to remove the cover page
from the pdf file first :-)

Best wishes
Deirdre

On 27 March 2015 at 00:42, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is something that has been very frustrating for some years now when
> you really want access  some piece of marvelously written information like
> this one but you are unable to do so. Like Deirdre said something we from
> Global South need to make a fuss about.
>
> Best,
>
> Arzak
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:47:53 -0400
> To: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com
> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of
> Internet Freedom
>
>
> Information is sadly only really free if you live in the first world.
> Certainly not in Saint Lucia where I live, and apparently not in Bolivia
> either.
> But there are still many lucky people associated with northern
> institutions who have access - the heads up was for them.
> I was disappointed too.
> Perhaps "Access for us too" is something we should begin to make a fuss
> about?
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> On 26 March 2015 at 12:29, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Deirdre, Becky and all
>
> > Might be of interest to some…
>
> But this lists are not marketplaces for selling any things. If you don't
> have a link for a free download, it is not really useful.
>
> many greetings, willi
> La Paz, Bolivia
>
>
> Am 26/03/2015 um 09:15 a.m. schrieb Deirdre Williams:
>
> For your information.
> Deirdre
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Becky Lentz <roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca>
> Date: 26 March 2015 at 08:25
> Subject: [bestbits] The Real Cyber War The Political Economy of Internet
> Freedom - How the freedom-to-connect movement aids Western hegemony
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>
>
> Might be of interest to some…
>
> *http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw <http://tinyurl.com/psf9dsw>*
>
> Discussions surrounding the role of the internet in society are dominated
> by terms such as *internet freedom*, *surveillance*, *cybersecurity,* and,
> most prolifically, *cyber war*. But behind the rhetoric of cyber war is an
> ongoing state-centered battle for control of information resources. Shawn
> Powers and Michael Jablonski conceptualize this *real* cyber war as the
> utilization of digital networks for geopolitical purposes, including covert
> attacks against another state’s electronic systems, but also, and more
> importantly, the variety of ways the internet is used to further a state’s
> economic and military agendas.
>
> Moving beyond debates on the democratic value of new and emerging
> information technologies, *The Real Cyber War* focuses on political,
> economic, and geopolitical factors driving internet freedom policies, in
> particular the U.S. State Department's emerging doctrine in support of a
> universal freedom to connect. They argue that efforts to create a universal
> internet built upon Western legal, political, and social preferences is
> driven by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than the
> humanitarian and democratic ideals that typically accompany related policy
> discourse. In fact, the freedom-to-connect movement is intertwined with
> broader efforts to structure global society in ways that favor American and
> Western cultures, economies, and governments….
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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:
>      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
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You received
> this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150330/60656081/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Mar 30 12:20:37 2015
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:20:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] Move to regulate skype and whatsup in India.
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0G5atuvGZjicaxd_sHeqkK0YqvyOSr8q2bOmdnXNZAMGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHyAo0G5atuvGZjicaxd_sHeqkK0YqvyOSr8q2bOmdnXNZAMGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eC$YanuVfXGVFA8u@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CAHyAo0G5atuvGZjicaxd_sHeqkK0YqvyOSr8q2bOmdnXNZAMGg at mail.gmail.com>, at 
14:01:59 on Sun, 29 Mar 2015, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> 
writes
>Hello,
>
>http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/trai-seeks-to-regulat
>e-ott-players-like-skype-viber-whatsapp-and-google-talk/
>
>On similar proposals in other countries,  how did the Internet user 
>respond

For a moment there I thought you were highlighting a new form of 
censorship, but the article appears to be about Net Neutrality - in the 
sense that carriers should not discriminate between traffic from one 
"OTT" or another, or between OTTs and their own legacy services, based 
on ransom payments.
-- 
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 joly at punkcast.com  Tue Mar 31 02:44:57 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 02:44:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Digital Trust and the Future of the
 Global Marketplace
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0wb9UyG+_jm39+bQg-soM2RZW4pi6nXjkw4vp3Rpzz-g@mail.gmail.com>

​WeWork Wonder Bread Factory is a new venue for the DC Chapter. To kick it
off they've cooked up this discussion on global trade​ in today's, and
tomorrow's, networked marketplace.


 joly posted: "Today Tuesday March 31 2015 the Greater Washington DC
Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) will present Digital Trust and
the Future of the Global Marketplace in Washington DC. TOPIC: How to
establish trust across far flung geographies and cultures. "


[image: digital trust]Today *Tuesday March 31 2015* the *Greater Washington
DC Chapter of the Internet Society <http://www.isoc-dc.org/>* (ISOC-DC)
will present *Digital Trust and the Future of the Global Marketplace
<http://www.eventbrite.com/e/digital-trust-and-the-future-of-the-global-marketplace-tickets-16174823332>*
in Washington DC. TOPIC: How to establish trust across far flung
geographies and cultures. How can security experts, businesses,
governments, and policy makers meet the complex tasks necessary to maintain
the trust needed to ensure the future of global innovation - the lifeblood
of economic growth? PANEL: *Jake Colvin* - Executive Director of the Global
Innovation Forum and Vice President at the National Foreign Trade
Council; A*dam
C. Schlosser* - Director Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; *Danielle Kehl* - Policy Analyst, Open Technology
Institute, New America Foundation; *Eric Burger* - Director (General
Manager) of the Georgetown Center for Secure Communications (GCSC) and the
Security and Software Engineering Research Center (S2ERC at Georgetown).
MODERATOR: *Michael Nelson* - Public Policy at Cloudflare, Inc. The event
will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel*
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/digital-trust>.





*What: Digital Trust and the Future of the Global Marketplace
<http://www.eventbrite.com/e/digital-trust-and-the-future-of-the-global-marketplace-tickets-16174823332>
Where: WeWork Wonder Bread Factory, Washington DC When: Tuesday March 31
2015 6:30pm-8:30pm EDT | 22:30-00:30 UTC Webcast:
https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/digital-trust
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/digital-trust> Twitter: @isocdc
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=isocdc&src=typd>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7692#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7692#comments>






*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7692







-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150331/0514281a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Tue Mar 31 03:31:40 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:31:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Internet Distinction Workshops for IGF
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxOWmPTt4NBNcOfs-5DFZDjyok4U-yBFMZhSdjmzDG9hw@mail.gmail.com>

Here are workshops I proposed for the Internet Governance Forum.  You
may be hearing more from me on these, as they get rejected or approved
and I try to pull together the rosters.


Limits on Convergence:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/246

Technical Supports and Trade Barriers:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/248

Stewardship, Rights and Cybersecurity:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/249

Sustainable Open Infrastructure:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/250

Retransmitting Published Information:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/251

Impacts on Internet Empowerment:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/252


Seth

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue Mar 31 03:59:25 2015
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:29:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)]
 APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
In-Reply-To: <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
	<618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for the
APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For those of
you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a proposal!

With best regards,
Anja


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: APrIGF Secretariat <sec at aprigf.asia>
Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 -
Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
To: announce at aprigf.asia



*Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
*APrIGF Macao 2015*
*30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
*Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>

*Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*

With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just concluded in
Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the overwhelming
interests from the attendees on submitting workshop proposals and their
request for a further deadline extension. To enhance the diversity of the
proposals and engage more stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a
consensus to further extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient
time for community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.

We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions which
should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, incorporating a
multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of stakeholders and gender in
the speakers list. The session shall promote an interactive dialogue among
the participants.

There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly
encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the extended
period.

*Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015 (Wed) *[Extended to 7
Apr (Tue)]*

*Online Submission Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/
)
If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at
sec at aprigf.asia.


*If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and
discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing
list discuss at aprigf.asia <discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in subscription
request.We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a
sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <sec at aprigf.asia> for more
information.*

Best Regards,
Secretariat of APrIGF
http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
_______________________________________________




_______________________________________________
Rigf_discuss mailing list
Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150331/c20f3e35/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APrIGF Logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18584 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150331/c20f3e35/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pwilson at apnic.net  Tue Mar 31 06:03:08 2015
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:03:08 +1000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia> <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87B3EF04-5F28-4EDE-A163-DAA0E4C1772C@apnic.net>

Thanks Anja, for spreading this news.

One reason for the deadline extension was to give a chance for those who brought workshops to RightsCon (last week in Manila) to bring some of the same issues and content into APrIGF.  In my opinion there is plenty of opportunity for this kind of cross-fertilisation, and then also, for these discussions to be taken onwards to the global IGF.

Although there are already a lot of good proposals for APrIGF, I hope this extension will allow even more good content and discussion to come to APrIGF.

Thanks,

Paul

(Chair of APrIGF steering group)


On 31 Mar 2015, at 5:59 pm, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a proposal!
> 
> With best regards,
> Anja
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: APrIGF Secretariat <sec at aprigf.asia>
> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
> To: announce at aprigf.asia
> 
> 
> <APrIGF Logo.png>
> Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
> APrIGF Macao 2015
> 30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015
> Sands Cotai Central, Macao
> http://2015.rigf.asia
> 
> Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals
> 
> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
> 
> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the extended period.
> 
> Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 11 Mar 2015 (Wed) [Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]
> 
> Online Submission Form: (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
> 
> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia.
> 
> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia by sending in subscription request.
> 
> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia for more information.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Secretariat of APrIGF
> http://www.aprigf.asia
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_discuss mailing list
> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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


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

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Mar 31 11:38:39 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:38:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] [Call for Paper] fifth International Symposium on
 Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA2015)
Message-ID: <030401d06bc8$c2ccb050$486610f0$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]

 

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

SIMPDA 2014

FIFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON DATA-DRIVEN PROCESS DISCOVERY AND ANALYSIS

9-11 DECEMBER, 2015 - VIENNA, AUSTRIA

 <http://simpda2015.di.unimi.it> http://simpda2015.di.unimi.it 

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

 

About SIMPDA

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

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

        

Call for Papers

The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and
Analysis (SIMPDA 2014) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches
and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business
process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis.

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

Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume of CEUR
workshop series. The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to
submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume hich will be
published in the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information
Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for eraly 2015
(extended papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15
papers will be selected for publication after a second round of review.

 

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

- Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods

- Lightweight Process Model

- Data-aware and data-centric approaches

- Process Mining with Big Data

- Variability and configuration of process models

- Process simulation and static analyses

- Process data query languages

- Process data mining

- Privacy-aware process data mining

- Process metadata and semantic reasoning

- Process patterns and standards

- Foundations of business process models

- Resource management in business process execution

- Process tracing and monitoring

- Process change management and evolution

- Business process lifecycle

- Case studies and experience reports

- Social process discovery

- Crowdsourced process definition and discovery

 

IMPORTANT DATES

 

- Paper Submission: 25 September 2015

- Submission of PhD Presentations: 25 September 2015

- Notification of Acceptance: 07 November 2015

- Submission of Camera Ready Papers: 21 November 2015

- Second International Symposium on Process Data: 9-11 December 2015

- Post-proceedings submissions: 30 March 2016

 

Workshop Format:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Call for PhD Research Plans

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

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

Research plans should be at most of 5 page long and should be organized
following the following structure: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

SIMPDA PhD award

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

Student Scholarships

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

In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it
<mailto:paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it>  

 

Organizers

 

CHAIRS 

- Stefanie Rinderle-Ma, Universität Wien, Austria

- Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

 

ADVISORY BOARD 

- Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria

- Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands

- Philippe Cudré-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland

 

Program Committee

- MOHAMED ACHEMLAL, UNIVERSITY OF BORDEAUX, FRANCE

- MARCO ANISETTI, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO, ITALY

- IRENE VANDERFEESTEN, EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, THE NETHERLANDS

- CLAUDIO ARDAGNA, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO, ITALY

- HELEN BALINSKY, HEWLETT-PACKARD LABORATORIES, UK

- MIRCO BIANCO, METROCONSULT ROBERTO DINI AND PARTNERS, ITALY

- JOOS BUIJS, EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, THE NETHERLANDS

- ANTONIO CAFORIO, UNIVERSITÀ DEL SALENTO, ITALY

- CAROLINA CHIAO, UNIVERSITY OF ULM, GERMANY

- TONY CLARK, MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY, UK

- BARABARA WEBER, UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA

- PAUL COTOFREI, UNIVERSITY OF NEUCHÂTEL, SWITZERLAND

- PHILIPPE CUDRE-MAUROUX, UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG, SWITZERLAND

- NORA CUPPENS, ÉCOLE NATIONALE SUPÉRIEURE DES TELECOMMUNICATIONS DE
BRETAGNE, FRANCE

- GIANLUCA DEMARTINI, UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD, UK.

- CLAUDIO DI CICCIO, WU VIENNA, AUSTRIA

- SCHAHRAM DUSTDAR, VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AUSTRIA

- GREGOR GRAMBOW, UNIVERSITY OF ULM, GERMANY

- CHRISTIAN GUETL, UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ, AUSTRIA

- MOHAND-SAID HACID, UNIVERSITY OF LYON, FRANCE

- VINCENT HILAIRE, UNIVERSITÉ DE TECHNOLOGIE DE BELFORT MONTBÉLIARD, FRANCE

- WEI-CHIANG HONG, ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHINA

- MUSTAFA JARRAR, BIRZEIT UNIVERSITY, PALESTINE

- MEIKO JENSEN, RUHR-UNI­VER­SI­TY BO­CHUM, GERMANY

- MASSIMO MECELLA, SAPIENZA UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA, ITALY

- JAN MENDLING, WU VIENNA, AUSTRIA

- KWANGHOON PIO KIM, KYONGGI UNIVERSITY, SOUTH KOREA.

- BARBARA RUSSO, FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOZEN - BOLZANO, ITALY

- GIOVANNA SISSA, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI GENOVA, ITALY

- MAURICE VAN KEULEN, UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE, THE NETHERLANDS

- MATTHIAS WEIDLICH, IMPERIAL COLLEGE, UK

- ISABELLA SEEBER, UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA

- ZEESHAN PERVEZ, UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF SCOTLAND, UK

- MARCIN WYLOT, UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG, SWITZERLAND

- JOSE JACOBO ZUBCOFF, UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE, SPAIN

- WILFRIED GROSSMANN, UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA, AUSTRIA

- KARIMA BOUDAOUD, ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE NICE SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS, FRANCE

 

Historical Information on Previous Editions

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150331/57190653/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 31 11:49:17 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:49:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] NETmundial Initiative council meeting remote
 participation
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2Zdjic36j67=6TGRsHY_5R8Va76TxxCpPg76zG14UdwQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The Coordinating Council of the NETmundial Initiative is gathered today in
San Francisco. One of the main issues in our agenda today is the discussion
of the draft Terms of Reference of the Initiative. This draft was developed
based on public consultations and on the inputs received.

The meeting starts in a few minutes and will take place from 9:00 to 19:00
San Francisco time (starting time is 16:00 UTC).

You can follow all the discussions today remotely (info below). It would be
great to count on your presence virtually with us.

Best wishes!
Marília

Informação para participação remota:
Adobe Connect: https://meet12965.adobeconnect.com/netmundial

Telefone: https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=7754874893&num=1-719-867-1571
Código do participante: 415-067-4424 Abraços


-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150331/c82ce985/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Mar 31 11:56:00 2015
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:56:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] IIT'15, IEEE Sponsored, Dubai (01-03 Nov 2015), Call
 for Papers, Tutorials & Workshops Proposals, Students Posters
Message-ID: <03af01d06bcb$2f1edfb0$8d5c9f10$@unimi.it>

Dear Colleagues,

 

Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP.

 

Call for Papers, Submission deadline: 30 May 2015

 

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

 

2015 11th International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology
(IIT'15) 

 

November 01-03, 2015, Dubai, UAE.

 

Conference website: http://www.it-innovations.ae/ 

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

 

Please feel free to distribute the IIT'15 CFP to your colleagues, students
and networks.

 

IIT'15 is technically sponsored by IEEE Computer Society. Proceedings will
be published by IEEE Computer Society Conference Publication Services, and
will be submitted for publication in Computer Society Digital Library
indexed in IEEE Xplore digital library, and all other global indices.

 

Selected papers from IIT'15 will be invited for possible publications in
special issues of journals. Extended papers will be published in a Springer
Book. 

 

IIT'15 brings together leading innovators in Research & Development and
Entrepreneurs in IT from around the world. The latest advances in fields
from traditional computer science to evolving smart applications and
technologies are explored in IIT'15 conference tracks. IIT'15 is an
excellent opportunity to present theoretical, experimental as well as
visionary research on various IT topics. The themes of IIT'15 are "Smart
Living Cities, Big Data and Sustainable Development" and all the
technologies that are required to provide better living conditions in the
cities of tomorrow. This theme will be reflected by a number of tracks which
focus on different aspects of related technologies such as big data and
cloud computing, collaborative platforms, communication infrastructures,
smart health, smart learning, social participation, sustainable development
and energy management.  All of those themes will be brought together by
unifying invited high quality keynotes and panels.  

 

CONFERENCE TRACKS/THEMES

 

Topics of interest include but not limited to the following major
tracks/themes. Research papers are invited but not limited to the following
areas:

 

Track A: Innovations in Information and Communication Infrastructures

- Advanced Network Technologies, Heterogeneous networks, and Real Time
Networks

- Quality of Services

- Next Generation of Mobile Networks

- Ad-Hoc and Sensor Networks, Wireless Networks

- Distributed Systems, Grid Computing

- Smart Grid

- Mobility Management and Mobile computing

- Information and Cyber Security for Smart Living Spaces

Track B: Internet of Things (IoT)

ICT Architecture for IoT

- System design, Modeling and Simulation

- Grid Computing , and Cloud Computing

- Real-Time Systems for IoT, Autonomic Systems

- Security, Privacy, Trust and Reliability

- Software Design and Development of IoT-Based Applications

- Intelligent Data Processing

- Smart Appliances & Wearable Computing Devices

Track C: Smart Collaborative Platforms and Logistics

Agile Information Systems

- Design, Modeling and Simulation of Collaborative Applications

- Practice and Experiences of Collaborative Applications

- Risk Management, Smart Business

- Middleware Support for Collaboration

- Real-Time Information Sharing and Interaction

- AI and Decision-Support Systems

Track D: Big Data and Smart Applications

- Big Data Analytics and Algorithms

- High Performance Computing and Real-Time of Big Data Processing

- Big Data Storage and Distribution

- Data Mining

- Grid Computing and Cloud Computing

- Middleware for Smart Applications

- e-Health, Smart Learning, Intelligent Processing and Intelligent
Applications

Track E: Cyber-Physical Energy Systems

- Theory, Tools and Applications

- System Design, Modeling and Simulation

- Testbeds and Experiences

- Algorithms for Energy Efficiency

- Middleware

- Design and Development of Protocols for Sustainable energy

- Design and Development of Secure and Resilient Systems

 

SUBMISSIONS

 

IIT'15 seeks original manuscripts (of up to 6 pages maximum in IEEE
two-column format) describing research in all aspects of IT that contribute
to the conference themes. Papers submitted to the conference should present
original work that has not been previously published or is currently under
review by other conferences or journals.  All papers will be peer reviewed,
and authors of accepted papers are expected to present their work at the
conference. Submissions of tutorial, special session, and workshop proposals
are also welcome. The submission guidelines are available at

http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/Authors.html. 

Paper submission should be done through http://www.edas.info   

 

IMPORTANT DATES

 

Papers and Posters Submission               30 May 2015

Submission of Tutorials                                30 May 2015

Notification of Papers and Posters         15 July 2015

Notification for Tutorials                             15 July 2015

Final Camera-Ready Paper                         01 September 2015

 

-------

Call for Tutorials

http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/cftutorials.html 

 

Tutorial Submission

 

IIT'15 seeks 2-3 hour long tutorials which can address an audience of senior
undergraduate students, graduate students and researchers.  The tutorials
will be open to all registered attendees free of charge. We seek proposals
across a wide range of interesting topics related to the theme of the main
conference including (but not limited to):  

 

- Next Generation Mobile and Wireless Networks

- Smart Grid and Cyber Physical Systems

- Green Technologies, Communications and Software

- Information and Cyber Security for Smart Living Spaces

- Internet of Things

- Smart Appliances & Wearable Computing Devices

- Design, Modeling and Simulation of Collaborative Applications

- Real-Time Information Sharing and Interaction

- Big Data Analytics and Algorithms

- Cloud Computing

- High Performance Computing 

- Middleware for Smart Applications and Platforms

- e-Health and Bioinformatics

- Smart Transportation Systems

 

Tutorial proposals can be submitted via the conference management system
(https://edas.info/), should be 2-3 pages and must include:

 

- A 500 word summary.

- Targeted audience.

- Justification/motivation behind the proposed topic. 

- A short biography of the presenter (one only), and previous lecture and
tutorial experience.

- If the tutorial was given before, indicate when and where it was given and
how it will be modified for IIT'15.

 

-------

 

Call for Workshop Proposals

http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/cfworkshops.html 

 

Workshops Submission

 

The IIT'15 organizing committee invites proposals for workshops within the
main theme of the conference and its related areas. Workshops are intended
to mainly cover research being done within the academic and professional
community on new ideas with the focus on new experiences and case studies.
All accepted workshop papers will be included as part of the proceedings
based on the main conference paper submission regulations and will be
subject to the same review policy. However, submission and reviewing of the
papers will be managed by the workshops organizers utilizing the conference
management system.

 

Workshop proposals should include:

- Title of the workshop.

- A 500 word summary of the workshop

- Full contact details of workshop organizers (maximum three), expected
number of paper submissions.

- Objectives of the workshop; why it is important and how it is relevant to
IIT'15.

- A draft Call for paper of the workshop with deadlines and list of TPC
members.

- If the workshop was conducted before, when and where it was conducted and
statistics on the number of attendees and the acceptance ratio.

- A short bio of the workshop organizers and past experiences in organizing
workshops, seminars, or research meetings. 

 

Up to two of each workshop organizers will be granted free IIT'15
registration for one paper each provided that their organized workshop has
more than 10 registered papers.

 

Workshop proposals must be no more than 5 pages in length and submission
should be made to EDAS: https://edas.info/ 

-------

Call for Students Posters

 

URL: http://www.it-innovations.ae/iit2015/posters.html 

 

 

We look forward to welcoming you in Dubai at IIT'15 in November 2015.

 

On behalf of the IIT'15 Organizing Committee

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150331/c961197f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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