<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Suresh, you really don’t get it, do you? You wrote</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma"><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial">“The rfc did make sense in the days when uucp over
expensive and high latency links was the order of the day, I must admit. I still
will try to ration myself<BR>”</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial">That’s not the point. The whole thing is, it’s not
possible to have a meaningful communication between a group of participants if
one person is responsible for about 35-40% of the postings. A communications
exchange that is meaningful gives space for all participants – and each
participant takes care to make sure they do not dominate proceedings. It’s like
listening as well as talking.</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial"><FONT face=Calibri>Like Wolfgang and others I also
believe you have exceeded a reasonable balance quite substantially in recent
days. </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial"><FONT face=Calibri></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial"><FONT face=Calibri>Ian Peter</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR>----- Reply message
-----<BR>From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de><BR>To:
<governance@lists.igcaucus.org>, "Suresh Ramasubramanian"
<suresh@hserus.net>, "Fahd A. Batayneh" <fahd.batayneh@gmail.com>,
"Timothy McGinnis" <dogwallah@gmail.com><BR>Cc:
<governance@lists.igcaucus.org><BR>Subject: AW: [governance] Indian
Express on privacy<BR>Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 11:14 PM<BR><BR></SPAN><BR>Hi
Suresh and others,<BR><BR>we have discussed at this list recently also some
ethical questions. Part of the traditional e-Mail Netiquette is that one should
not send more than five (5) e-mails to a list per day. Before putting the reply
button one should think about what I have to say and consider to summarize the
ideas of the day in one or two mails. 30 e-mails within two days is definitely
too much. I understand that vibrant debates need a quick reply. However, the old
netiquette, laid down in RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
<http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=rfc%201855%20netiquette%20guidelines&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1855.txt&ei=fViyULyUIsfBtAbiv4GQAQ&usg=AFQjCNHJDaCrMM1WEvpUgffCQn1l1gYrTQ>
was not so bad.<BR><BR>Best
wishes<BR><BR>wolfgang<BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>Von:
governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh
Ramasubramanian<BR>Gesendet: Sa 24.11.2012 14:30<BR>An: Fahd A. Batayneh;
Timothy McGinnis<BR>Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR>Betreff: Re:
[governance] Indian Express on privacy<BR><BR><BR>Even if your traffic does pass
through a western country it would be because the destination is there unless
your isp is unwise enough not to peer with other local isps<BR><BR>--srs (htc
one x)<BR><BR><BR>----- Reply message -----<BR>From: "Fahd A. Batayneh"
<fahd.batayneh@gmail.com><BR>To: "McTim"
<dogwallah@gmail.com><BR>Cc: "IG Caucus"
<governance@lists.igcaucus.org><BR>Subject: [governance] Indian Express on
privacy<BR>Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM<BR><BR><BR>On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at
2:40 PM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:<BR><BR>><BR>><BR>> On
Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh
<fahd.batayneh@gmail.com<BR>> > wrote:<BR>><BR>>> While I do
have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of<BR>>> them
for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can<BR>>>
expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at
things<BR>>> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our
Internet traffic<BR>>> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA
and EU<BR>>><BR>><BR>><BR>> ALL, is a pretty strong
statement.<BR>><BR><BR>Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or
maybe within the<BR>same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across
the same<BR>Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven
countries.<BR><BR><BR>><BR>> Do you have any evidence for
it?<BR>><BR><BR>No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is
monitored vs.<BR>something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you
disagree<BR>that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access
points<BR>based in Western countries?<BR><BR><BR>><BR>> , and some of them
might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of<BR>>> "National
Security".<BR>>><BR>><BR>><BR>> None of them "want to", as it
would impact business of passing packets.<BR>><BR><BR>Not really. Business is
one aspect of the story, but national interests is<BR>another (especially
Western countries that keep using the term "War
on<BR>Terror").<BR><BR>Fahd<BR><BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR>To be removed from the list,
visit:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<BR><BR>For all other list information and
functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<BR>To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/<BR><BR>Translate this email:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>