From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct  2 04:47:55 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:47:55 +0800
Subject: Requests for your assistance for Best Bits
Message-ID: <506AAA3B.3080708@ciroap.org>

As many of you know, plans for the Best Bits meeting came together this
year, following on from an informal meeting at the Asia-Pacific Regional
IGF (the background to which is at
http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/APrIGF-meetup).

I have been shepherding the process along since then, but since Best
Bits has come together spontaneously, it is not something for which
there is any allowance of time or budget in my organisational workplan -
hence, I would appreciate some help from you.

Here are the most important areas where help is still needed:

  * Making a proper website for the event to replace the Etherpad page
    (http://igf-online.net/bestbits), including a confirmation of
    registration form so that we can finalise our numbers.
  * Arranging web conference and other remote participation options.  A
    simple solution would be to utilise http://www.ustream.tv/, but a
    web-connected camera also needs to be arranged.
  * Arranging a press conference for the Sunday afternoon.  This
    requires someone with PR experience who can liaise with the press
    office at the IGF.
  * Providing background papers for distribution to the participants
    ahead of the meeting.  These are due to be provided to Andrew
    Puddephatt by Friday 19 October at the latest.

For those of you who have supported the idea of Best Bits, please go
that step further and also set aside some of your time to help in
whichever of these areas you can.  We now only have a month to go!

Additionally, I am going to start two threads in which discussions about
the two output documents planned for the meeting can take place.  So
your participation in those threads will also be appreciated.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/9cb6f93b/attachment.htm>

From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Oct  2 12:41:00 2012
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 11:41:00 -0500
Subject: Requests for your assistance for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <506AAA3B.3080708@ciroap.org>
References: <506AAA3B.3080708@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CALCecM_gsu_mm62P2ugG7-_cVPyhsE6Rh0a46AL9B9W-V89w5A@mail.gmail.com>

I would be happy to do remote moderation if you do not have a volunteer
yet...
Cheers, gp

Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
**
**



On 2 October 2012 03:47, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  As many of you know, plans for the Best Bits meeting came together this
> year, following on from an informal meeting at the Asia-Pacific Regional
> IGF (the background to which is at
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/APrIGF-meetup).
>
> I have been shepherding the process along since then, but since Best Bits
> has come together spontaneously, it is not something for which there is any
> allowance of time or budget in my organisational workplan - hence, I would
> appreciate some help from you.
>
> Here are the most important areas where help is still needed:
>
>    - Making a proper website for the event to replace the Etherpad page (
>    http://igf-online.net/bestbits), including a confirmation of
>    registration form so that we can finalise our numbers.
>     - Arranging web conference and other remote participation options.  A
>    simple solution would be to utilise http://www.ustream.tv/, but a
>    web-connected camera also needs to be arranged.
>     - Arranging a press conference for the Sunday afternoon.  This
>    requires someone with PR experience who can liaise with the press office at
>    the IGF.
>    - Providing background papers for distribution to the participants
>    ahead of the meeting.  These are due to be provided to Andrew Puddephatt by
>    Friday 19 October at the latest.
>
> For those of you who have supported the idea of Best Bits, please go that
> step further and also set aside some of your time to help in whichever of
> these areas you can.  We now only have a month to go!
>
> Additionally, I am going to start two threads in which discussions about
> the two output documents planned for the meeting can take place.  So your
> participation in those threads will also be appreciated.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/149139a6/attachment.htm>

From claudio at derechosdigitales.org  Tue Oct  2 19:18:19 2012
From: claudio at derechosdigitales.org (Claudio Ruiz)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 19:18:19 -0400
Subject: Requests for your assistance for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <506AAA3B.3080708@ciroap.org>
References: <506AAA3B.3080708@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAH3SeZS30ng8UL2Fwns0ZtdpBKfGbxLqaVtLoPWNAPK7S7P4dQ@mail.gmail.com>

It would be great if you could be more clear about what do we need about
the proper website to analyze if we can help on it, specially because of
the the time pressure.
What do we exactly need? What kind of information do we need to put online?

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  As many of you know, plans for the Best Bits meeting came together this
> year, following on from an informal meeting at the Asia-Pacific Regional
> IGF (the background to which is at
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/APrIGF-meetup).
>
> I have been shepherding the process along since then, but since Best Bits
> has come together spontaneously, it is not something for which there is any
> allowance of time or budget in my organisational workplan - hence, I would
> appreciate some help from you.
>
> Here are the most important areas where help is still needed:
>
>    - Making a proper website for the event to replace the Etherpad page (
>    http://igf-online.net/bestbits), including a confirmation of
>    registration form so that we can finalise our numbers.
>     - Arranging web conference and other remote participation options.  A
>    simple solution would be to utilise http://www.ustream.tv/, but a
>    web-connected camera also needs to be arranged.
>     - Arranging a press conference for the Sunday afternoon.  This
>    requires someone with PR experience who can liaise with the press office at
>    the IGF.
>    - Providing background papers for distribution to the participants
>    ahead of the meeting.  These are due to be provided to Andrew Puddephatt by
>    Friday 19 October at the latest.
>
> For those of you who have supported the idea of Best Bits, please go that
> step further and also set aside some of your time to help in whichever of
> these areas you can.  We now only have a month to go!
>
> Additionally, I am going to start two threads in which discussions about
> the two output documents planned for the meeting can take place.  So your
> participation in those threads will also be appreciated.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/296cda96/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct  2 23:21:30 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:21:30 +0800
Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <B772BBE4-3519-435E-8E62-740829FF4DC9@UZH.CH>
References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> <506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org> <5CBD2118-9564-49C5-B009-467DBE5920CC@uzh.ch> <96785171-7B35-4C56-8101-3E266D1FD7D9@ciroap.org> <B772BBE4-3519-435E-8E62-740829FF4DC9@UZH.CH>
Message-ID: <506BAF3A.2030800@ciroap.org>

On 02/10/12 22:46, William Drake wrote:
> Although I didn't quite take Norbert's point about the principles
> declaration not needing to be finished.  Again, we will be talking
> about principles in the Taking Stock main session.  We will be
> reviewing the various principles initiatives undertaken by IGOs etc.
> and linking these to the IGF and its future role. Trying to line up
> good government participants to draw their peers' attention.   I would
> have thought that a freshly produced statement from stakeholders would
> have provided a usefully complementary input, and way to bring the
> whole BB enterprise to wider attendees' attention.

Totally agree, but I think Norbert may have just meant that we have a
hard deadline for the ITU statement, since the public submissions will
close that very day.  For the IGF statement, we at least have a couple
more days up our sleeve if we need them.

> Potentially booting on the principles declaration in order to have yet
> another EC discussion on top of the full day after plus the EuroComm
> thing seems an odd choice to me, but if that's what folks want to do, ok.

It is important for everyone to understand EC to contextualise our work
on the principles, and not everyone will be attending the APC event the
following day.  But, by all means, we can shorten it a little in order
to give more time for the drafting.  Day 2 is very full now.  At present
(but this is open for comment), we have 3 hours for the drafting, and 3
hours for the background sessions that precede it.

To make this possible, I've reduced the lunch break, and reduced the
length of the "Next steps" session, and taken out the press conference.

This doesn't mean we won't have a press conference, but it makes sense
to move this to the course of the IGF itself.  The press will already be
there, and there will be a daily official press conference into which we
may be able to wrap our own (I'll enquire).  This will give our outputs
a lot more visibility, and will also provide a few days' breathing room
for finessing of the text - gathering signatures, proof-reading,
printing copies, etc.

So that's now reflected on the agenda at
http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/BestBits, though comments are always
welcome.  Who wants to help me in organising a press conference during
the IGF?

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121003/ac4e315f/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Tue Oct  2 23:34:04 2012
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 23:34:04 -0400
Subject: Azeri civil society
Message-ID: <062B7992-A7BB-45E9-8134-BD10A5C6B21E@acm.org>

hi,

Just wanted to let people know that I was just in Baku for a week meeting with various CS groups there.  Among  the things that I did was make sure they knew about bestbits, with the hope that they would attend.

I hope that in establishing the plan for your meeting you allow space for some discussions on what the civil society in Azerbaijan may need from the IGF and Internet governance

thanks

avri



From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct  2 23:39:32 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:39:32 +0800
Subject: Azeri civil society
In-Reply-To: <062B7992-A7BB-45E9-8134-BD10A5C6B21E@acm.org>
References: <062B7992-A7BB-45E9-8134-BD10A5C6B21E@acm.org>
Message-ID: <506BB374.4060303@ciroap.org>

On 03/10/12 11:34, Avri Doria wrote:
> Just wanted to let people know that I was just in Baku for a week meeting with various CS groups there.  Among  the things that I did was make sure they knew about bestbits, with the hope that they would attend.
>
> I hope that in establishing the plan for your meeting you allow space for some discussions on what the civil society in Azerbaijan may need from the IGF and Internet governance

Many thanks Avri.  Who are the groups, and how can we contact them?

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121003/103693d6/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Oct  3 02:48:48 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:48:48 +0800
Subject: Requests for your assistance for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <20121002172441.6e111b5c@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <506AAA3B.3080708@ciroap.org> <20121002172441.6e111b5c@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <506BDFD0.5030809@ciroap.org>

On 02/10/12 23:24, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> I'd be willing to contribute a background paper for this session:
>
> """
> Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues

Thanks Norbert.  Just to clarify for everyone, background papers need
not have been written especially for Best Bits.  Many of you have
already written some really good briefings, articles or even blog posts
on issues relevant to our agenda.  If they are already online, just add
a link to them to the pad (under the "Preparation" heading at
http://igf-online.net/bestbits), and/or send the links to Andrew Puddephatt.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121003/2d5c9c18/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Oct  3 07:02:10 2012
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:02:10 +0200
Subject: What kind of drafting work on "IG Principles"? (was Re:
 Two-question...)
In-Reply-To: <506BAF3A.2030800@ciroap.org>
References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org>
	<50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org>
	<506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org>
	<5CBD2118-9564-49C5-B009-467DBE5920CC@uzh.ch>
	<96785171-7B35-4C56-8101-3E266D1FD7D9@ciroap.org>
	<B772BBE4-3519-435E-8E62-740829FF4DC9@UZH.CH>
	<506BAF3A.2030800@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20121003130210.201d903e@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 02/10/12 22:46, William Drake wrote:
> > Although I didn't quite take Norbert's point about the principles
> > declaration not needing to be finished.  Again, we will be talking
> > about principles in the Taking Stock main session.  We will be
> > reviewing the various principles initiatives undertaken by IGOs etc.
> > and linking these to the IGF and its future role. Trying to line up
> > good government participants to draw their peers' attention.   I
> > would have thought that a freshly produced statement from
> > stakeholders would have provided a usefully complementary input,
> > and way to bring the whole BB enterprise to wider attendees'
> > attention.
> 
> Totally agree, but I think Norbert may have just meant that we have a
> hard deadline for the ITU statement, since the public submissions will
> close that very day.  For the IGF statement, we at least have a couple
> more days up our sleeve if we need them.

Well my thoughts regarding the drafting work on "IG Principles" were
that we might take steps forward in the wordsmithing towards creating a
good text that could eventually evolve into a "Universal Declaration of
Internet Governance Principles" with broad multistakeholder support and
perhaps a UNGA resolution endorsing it. That wouldn't be something to
finalize in Baku. Rather we'd make as much progress as we can to create
a draft text which is as good as we can make it, and then appoint a team
to lead the work of taking things forward from there. 

But I also see the value of what Bill suggests, to create a "freshly
produced statement from stakeholders". In my view, that kind of thing
should definitely be finalized by Monday evening at the latest. That
doesn't give a lot of extra time, but at least it gives one day which
civil society organizations can use to consider whether they want to
endorse the statement, and if it should turn out during that phase that
some part of the wording is really unfortunate and should be changed,
we'd have a chance to have an extra meeting on Monday evening to decide
such a change. 

The realities of the scarcity of time and bandwidth of human
thinking and communication capacity being what they are, I'm pretty
sure that we can't realize both of these ideas in the context of this
year's Best Bits gathering. We need to choose either of them. Either
approach is ok in my opinion.

> This doesn't mean we won't have a press conference, but it makes sense
> to move this to the course of the IGF itself.  The press will already
> be there, and there will be a daily official press conference into
> which we may be able to wrap our own (I'll enquire).  This will give
> our outputs a lot more visibility, and will also provide a few days'
> breathing room for finessing of the text - gathering signatures,
> proof-reading, printing copies, etc.

Sounds like a good plan IMO.

Greetings,
Norbert


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Oct  3 07:30:33 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:30:33 +0800
Subject: What kind of drafting work on "IG Principles"? (was Re: Two-question...)
In-Reply-To: <20121003130210.201d903e@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> <506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org> <5CBD2118-9564-49C5-B009-467DBE5920CC@uzh.ch> <96785171-7B35-4C56-8101-3E266D1FD7D9@ciroap.org> <B772BBE4-3519-435E-8E62-740829FF4DC9@UZH.CH> <506BAF3A.2030800@ciroap.org> <20121003130210.201d903e@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <506C21D9.3070004@ciroap.org>

On 03/10/12 19:02, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Well my thoughts regarding the drafting work on "IG Principles" were
> that we might take steps forward in the wordsmithing towards creating a
> good text that could eventually evolve into a "Universal Declaration of
> Internet Governance Principles" with broad multistakeholder support and
> perhaps a UNGA resolution endorsing it. That wouldn't be something to
> finalize in Baku. Rather we'd make as much progress as we can to create
> a draft text which is as good as we can make it, and then appoint a team
> to lead the work of taking things forward from there. 
>
> But I also see the value of what Bill suggests, to create a "freshly
> produced statement from stakeholders". In my view, that kind of thing
> should definitely be finalized by Monday evening at the latest. That
> doesn't give a lot of extra time, but at least it gives one day which
> civil society organizations can use to consider whether they want to
> endorse the statement, and if it should turn out during that phase that
> some part of the wording is really unfortunate and should be changed,
> we'd have a chance to have an extra meeting on Monday evening to decide
> such a change. 
>
> The realities of the scarcity of time and bandwidth of human
> thinking and communication capacity being what they are, I'm pretty
> sure that we can't realize both of these ideas in the context of this
> year's Best Bits gathering. We need to choose either of them. Either
> approach is ok in my opinion.

A broader multi-stakeholder declaration of principles or affirmation of
commitments (or whatever you want to call it) is definitely an end game
that many of us share, but we don't have a mandate to begin that process
yet.  This is something that we need to advocate for at the IGF first,
and as you say, it will take some time.

Meanwhile, we need to have a civil society position on the table that
can later be an input into such a broader multi-stakeholder document. 
After all, everyone else has their own statements of principles that
they have presented at the IGF (USG, CoE, G8, IBSA, etc) and until now
civil society has been left behind.  I don't think we need to wait for
the multi-stakeholder process to begin first.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121003/c42e16fc/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Oct  4 02:35:45 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:35:45 +0800
Subject: IGF Community Site updated for Baku
Message-ID: <506D2E41.5020105@ciroap.org>

Some of you may remember the IGF Community Site at
http://igf-online.net, which since 2007 has been the only volunteer-run
community portal for IGF participants.  It continues to offer facilities
that don't exist on the official website, and which are freely available
for anyone to use.

Its most useful facility is a page for each and every IGF event, which
contains a link to a dedicated chatroom and wiki page for the event,
lists the hashtags to be used on other social media sites (with a
one-click Twitter search), and provides the ability for participants to
leave links and comments.

In addition there is a subscribable calendar, a community wiki,
community blog, feed aggregation, chat server, and a multilingual,
embeddable menu bar that links all the official and community IGF
resources together.  All the software used to provide this is 100% free
and open source.

Here is a quick walkthrough which highlights the features of the site:

 1. Begin at http://igf-online.net/.  The menu bar that runs across the
    top links you to all the official and community resources you need
    for IGF 2012.  If it's not in your preferred language, try switching
    to French, Spanish or Russian from the Language menu.
 2. Click "Calendar", which will take you to the IGF week by default. 
    If you like, switch from "Week" to "Day" view using the controls on
    the right hand side.  You can subscribe to the calendar in software
    such as iCal, Google Calendar or Sunbird using the "Subscribe" link.
 3. Click on any event displayed in the calendar, then click again on
    the link in the small window that opens up, to load up a blog page
    for that event.  As you'll see, listed here are the official
    workshop description, links to the wiki and chat pages for the
    event, and its hashtags.
 4. You can contribute information about the event (such as a report,
    feedback, or questions) by simply replying to the event blog post,
    or by editing the linked wiki page.  (If you want to be sure the
    event organisers see what you write, drop them an email pointing
    them to it too.)
 5. In either case, you'll need to log in to the blog or wiki before
    posting to it.  The easiest way to do that is with an OpenID.  If
    you have a Google or Yahoo account, you already have an OpenID!  If
    not, there are many places to sign up for one - see
    http://openid.net/get-an-openid.
 6. If you have a blog of your own, drop me a link to it - I'll add it
    to the aggregated RSS feed which is available under the "Feeds" link
    from the "Info/Wiki" menu bar.  If you don't have one, blog on the
    Community Site itself!  Just click "+ New" at the top of the page
    once logged in.

I hope that this has given you a flavour for just how useful this
resource can be - and it will only become more useful as more people
begin to use it.  So please also blog, tweet, link to and tell as many
people as you can about the IGF Community Site.  Hope to see your
contributions there soon!

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121004/151ecadd/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Oct 10 09:05:52 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:05:52 +0800
Subject: New Best Bits website - please visit and register
Message-ID: <0EF2E779-9FC5-49ED-A8B7-107853C8888A@ciroap.org>

I said that I wouldn't have time to put together a proper website for Best Bits, but I have done it anyway!  Please check out the new site at http://bestbits.igf-online.net (the old address http://igf-online.net/bestbits now redirects there too).

We are asking everyone to register again on the new website, because there is some ambiguity on the old Etherpad list as to who is attending or not.  So if you intend to come, please register on the above site.  However please note that if you don't already have a visa to attend the IGF, it might be too late to get one - please make your own enquiries to visainquiries at igf2012.az in this regard.

We also have a bit more available funding for those who need it.  If you want to attend but your attendance is contingent on funding for your travel or accommodation (for 2-3 nights), please register anyway as you can specify this when registering.  If you will definitely be there anyway and funding would simply be "nice to have", then just contact me offlist to reconfirm your interest.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121010/28eef266/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct  2 05:59:42 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:59:42 +0800
Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org>
References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org>

On 25/09/12 13:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> For the agenda, there is also a majority in favour of retaining the
> planned format shown at http://igf-online.net/bestbits, but about
> two-thirds as many people would rather have discussion and drafting on
> each of the two days - in which case it would make sense to do ITU on
> the first day, since that day is the deadline for comments to the
> ITU's online comment system.[0]  There is not such strong support for
> any other changes being made.  Whilst that means that most people are
> content with the existing agenda, amongst those who are content with
> it, is there anyone who would strongly object to the change that the
> minority are suggesting?

Nobody has spoken up to say that they *would* oppose changing the agenda
to move the ITU drafting and discussion together onto the same day, so I
have revised the proposed agenda accordingly.  Please check out and
comment on the proposed amended version, which is now live  (the good
thing about an Etherpad is the we can easily roll back to the old
version if you don't like  it):

http://igf-online.net/bestbits

It means that there is less time for each drafting session, because they
are no longer being held simultaneously.  It also means that Day 1 is
heavier than Day 2 now.  What do you think?  Looking forward to your
further comments, if any.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/884ec121/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Oct 12 01:54:16 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:54:16 +0800
Subject: How and where to upload Best Bits background papers
Message-ID: <5077B088.1040906@ciroap.org>

The deadline for background papers to be contributed to Best Bits is in
one week from today, in order to leave enough time for Andrew Puddephatt
to compile them into a briefing pack with a short introduction paper. 
There are a few that have been contributed already, which you can find
on the new website at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/background-papers/.

You can upload yours by logging in to the website and composing a short
message that attaches or links to it.  In order to log in you need to
either create an account, or log in with an existing OpenID (for example
a Google, Blogger, AOL or Wordpress account).  Instructions are given on
the site itself, but please let me know if you need any help.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121012/9375df89/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct 16 03:27:39 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:27:39 +0800
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
Message-ID: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org>

I am cutting and pasting here from an off-list email summarising the
opportunities that still exist for you to participate in Best Bits,
since I thought that information might be useful to others too.

  * To distribute ownership of the event more widely, the moderators of
    each session are now responsible for finding volunteers to
    contribute to that session (as panelists, discussants, etc, as they
    choose).  So please take a look at
    http://bestbits.igf-online.net/agenda/ and decide which session/s
    you'd like to contribute to.  I can then put you in touch with the
    moderator, or you can contact them directly.
  * Please upload any documents that you'd like the other participants
    to use as resources to the page
    http://bestbits.igf-online.net/background-papers/, by this Friday. 
    Instructions on how to do so are there.  Andrew Puddephatt will be
    compiling them together into a briefing pack, and writing an
    introductory paper.  If you have difficulty uploading, let me know.
  * As for the "zero draft" output documents, these have been slower to
    come together than anticipated, however we deliberately have several
    hours to work on them during the event itself.  As things stand we
    do not have draft text, so by all means, please post your ideas to
    the list.
      o For the ITU statement, William Drake is facilitating it and is
        proposing a text focusing on substantive issues, which will be
        submitted to the ITU public comment process on 3 November.
      o For the Internet governance principles, Wolfgang Kleinwächter's
        current proposal is that we use the existing text that APC and
        others worked on for the Council of Europe, which is this one:
        http://www.apc.org/en/node/11199.

In addition:

  * If you have been offered funding for your hotel stay during Best
    Bits, please reply to confirm whether you will be needing this, and
    whether you will be staying at the Days Hotel (in which case we can
    pay the hotel directly for those nights) or elsewhere.
  * If you will be attending Best Bits in person but have not yet
    re-confirmed your registration by completing the form at
    http://bestbits.igf-online.net/registration/, please take one minute
    now do do that.

Thanks!

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121016/d405be1f/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Oct 16 06:46:41 2012
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:16:41 +0530
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 16 October 2012 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

SNIP
>
>       o For the ITU statement, William Drake is facilitating it and is
>         proposing a text focusing on substantive issues, which will be
>         submitted to the ITU public comment process on 3 November.
>       o For the Internet governance principles, Wolfgang
>         Kleinwächter's current proposal is that we use the existing
>         text that APC and others worked on for the Council of Europe,
>         which is this one: http://www.apc.org/en/node/11199.
>

All,

I remain sceptical of how this exercise is going to be done and 
concluded. for a long time I believed that we were looking at 
substantive Internet principles but now I see we are only taking about 
procedural principles for IG. First of all I think we need to do 
substantive principles first, and the IRP document is the most 
extensively worked on. Indeed there has been a discussion on this list 
to use that as the base doc. I dont think we would be able to do a new 
document of procedural principles on IG in this short time. There are 
deep differences involved, as for instance the recent discussion on the 
IGC list on democracy versus multistakeholderism showed. It will be 
wrong to roadroller these differences and come up with a document in 
this short while. To give you a feel of what I am talking about - I will 
like to put democratic before multistakeholder in any procedural 
document on IG - which btw is meant to cover local to national to global 
levels. Do all agree to this proposition here? Also I will like to speak 
about funding issues around IG institutions, and need for neutral public 
funding for them. There are many such issues. I am happy to discuss 
them, here and/or at the workshop. But lets not hurry with something in 
the name of civil society.

On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to the 
ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is 
much more doable.

Jeremy, can we have a list of people on this elist, and those who are 
now confirmed to attend the meeting. Thanks.

parminder



> In addition:
>
>   * If you have been offered funding for your hotel stay during Best
>     Bits, please reply to confirm whether you will be needing this,
>     and whether you will be staying at the Days Hotel (in which case
>     we can pay the hotel directly for those nights) or elsewhere.
>   * If you will be attending Best Bits in person but have not yet
>     re-confirmed your registration by completing the form at
>     http://bestbits.igf-online.net/registration/, please take one
>     minute now do do that.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* 
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121016/7f4ae889/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Oct 16 06:51:31 2012
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:21:31 +0530
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <507D3C33.70701@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 16 October 2012 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> I am cutting and pasting here from an off-list email summarising the 
> opportunities that still exist for you to participate in Best Bits, 
> since I thought that information might be useful to others too.
>
>   * To distribute ownership of the event more widely, the moderators
>     of each session are now responsible for finding volunteers to
>     contribute to that session (as panelists, discussants, etc, as
>     they choose).  So please take a look at
>     http://bestbits.igf-online.net/agenda/ and decide which session/s
>     you'd like to contribute to.  I can then put you in touch with the
>     moderator, or you can contact them directly.
>   * Please upload any documents that you'd like the other participants
>     to use as resources to the page
>     http://bestbits.igf-online.net/background-papers/, by this
>     Friday.  Instructions on how to do so are there. Andrew Puddephatt
>     will be compiling them together into a briefing pack, and writing
>     an introductory paper.  If you have difficulty uploading, let me know.
>

I did a paper on dev agenda in IG last year which is at 
http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf 
. It speaks about global pubic policy issues and institutional options. 
Best, parminder
>
>  *
>   * As for the "zero draft" output documents, these have been slower
>     to come together than anticipated, however we deliberately have
>     several hours to work on them during the event itself.  As things
>     stand we do not have draft text, so by all means, please post your
>     ideas to the list.
>       o For the ITU statement, William Drake is facilitating it and is
>         proposing a text focusing on substantive issues, which will be
>         submitted to the ITU public comment process on 3 November.
>       o For the Internet governance principles, Wolfgang
>         Kleinwächter's current proposal is that we use the existing
>         text that APC and others worked on for the Council of Europe,
>         which is this one: http://www.apc.org/en/node/11199.
>
> In addition:
>
>   * If you have been offered funding for your hotel stay during Best
>     Bits, please reply to confirm whether you will be needing this,
>     and whether you will be staying at the Days Hotel (in which case
>     we can pay the hotel directly for those nights) or elsewhere.
>   * If you will be attending Best Bits in person but have not yet
>     re-confirmed your registration by completing the form at
>     http://bestbits.igf-online.net/registration/, please take one
>     minute now do do that.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* 
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121016/84074266/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Tue Oct 16 08:32:43 2012
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:32:43 -0400
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch>

Hi Parminder

Greetings from ICANN Toronto, where some of us are trying to push the inclusion of human rights in actual governance processes.

On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:46 AM, parminder wrote:

> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to the ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is much more doable. 

I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement.  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the process, e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, watershed, historic (quoting the press office) release of a document that had already been leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was news.  And more generally, those statements made senior staff who'd previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering among the riff raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive perception management gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling critics that their concerns are all myths.  So all good.

What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more focused on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the conference chair declare some sessions open to the public.  One imagines there will be push back from the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case.  Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that could be problematic for the Internet and offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally, these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may have real legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of overreach and that there are other, more effective ways to deal with them than via a multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and content.  If we do that, at least some delegations might have a look before tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and that would establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main session in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.

As to the other statement, I don't believe that focusing on the procedural elements would be unproductive and of less value than a more substantive statement, which I suspect would prove a bit difficult to break new and consensual ground on.  Your dislike of multistakeholderism is duly noted, but among the wider community of IG mavens the procedural aspects have consistently proven easier to reach consensus on, not only within CS, but with other stakeholders as well.  This was demonstrated throughout WSIS and the IGF's early years.  And the good work done by APC and partners on this has not been fully amplified and leveraged, and there's never been more of a need to be saying such things.  One need look no further than the WCIT and the London Process to see why.  Such a statement can feed in directly to the Taking Stock and Way Forward main session.  So I'd go with the model this group has worked out through collaboration facilitated by Jeremy, rather than toss it aside.

Best,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121016/1e6a6251/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Tue Oct 16 08:54:01 2012
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:54:01 -0400
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507D3C33.70701@itforchange.net>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3C33.70701@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <FEA249F7-1445-4380-AE37-4F07EDCACD9F@uzh.ch>


On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:51 AM, parminder wrote:

> I did a paper on dev agenda in IG last year which is athttp://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf  . It speaks about global pubic policy issues and institutional options. Best, parminder

Indeed, and basically conflates your views on enhanced cooperation with the notion of a development agenda.  Do you believe it'd be easy for a diverse group to reach consensus on such points in a day?

Here's another development agenda paper http://www.academia.edu/1902649/Drake_William_J._2010._IG4D_Toward_a_Development_Agenda_for_Internet_Governance._In_Internet_Governance_Creating_Opportunities_for_All---The_Fourth_Internet_Governance_Forum_Sharm_el_Sheikh_Egypt_15-18_November_2009_edited_by_William_J._Drake_57-75._New_York_The_United_Nations  that focused more on the procedural side and argues for having working groups under the IGF aegis, which I'd like to see for enhanced cooperation (to be discussed at the event following BB http://ec-event-igf2012.apc.org/programme.

Again, I'd argue for an institution building procedural focus as something that might actually be doable in the time available, and useful as input to the IGF meeting.

Best,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121016/e58c40a6/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Oct 16 22:55:26 2012
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:25:26 +0530
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net> <CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <507E1E1E.5020301@itforchange.net>

Hi Bill,

On Tuesday 16 October 2012 06:02 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> Greetings from ICANN Toronto, where some of us are trying to push the 
> inclusion of human rights in actual governance processes.

Great. Would be good to know what exactly is it about.

About the matters below.

I have no doubt that any ITU statement at this juncture should address 
core issues of ITR amendments.

My comments were wholly addressed to the track two activity. I am not 
sure what is the sudden hurry to pull out from a hat some process 
principles for IG in this compressed time, when the issue is rather 
contentious and requires to be given all the time and attention it 
needs. Also, I genuinely believed that we were talking about substantive 
principles for the Internet/IG, since for instance, the IRP declaration 
was talked about among other statements of substantive principle. I am 
not sure what is the name of workshop now, but the note Ihave calls it 
"a strategic gathering of NGOs around Internet governance and /*Internet 
principles*/".

But if you really want to go ahead, by all means do give it a try. Just 
dont sweep aside issues like the democratic versus multistakeholderism 
discussion we recently had in the IGC list... and other issues like 
funding of public participation bodies, structural provisions for 
representing the voice of the under-represented, conflict of interest 
and public policy making, role of big business in global Internet policy 
making ( Obama's famous 'will do away with revolving doors between 
business and politics ' agenda that people cheered so 
much)................. We cant selectively chose some principles that 
buttress certain governance orders and not other kinds. We will need to 
go really deep, and go the whole hog.

I dont think the CoE / APC's code of good practices is the right 
document to start with. In any case, principles are different from code 
of practices. And going back to the substantive/ process issue, I see 
the shift from focus on substantive to process and from principles to 
practices itself a /substantive/ issue of far reaching implication vis a 
vis directions that politics and governance is taking. (Yes, this is a 
critique of relatively recent neolib tendencies in this regard.) In 
politics what is not done can be just as important as what is done. 
Therefore the logic of 'formal processes and codes have been easy to 
agree on' needs to be examined more deepy and thoroughly for its 
implication to public interest, especially the interest of those who are 
marginalised. I am seeking such deeper and thorough examinations in the 
proposed workshop, and these pre-workshop discussions. I dont want it 
reduced to 'we have more or less a ready template based on an imagined 
considerable existing meeting of minds', and lets just polish and finish 
it. My reading of the initially posted primary purpose of the workshop 
does not match such an approach.

Best regards,

parminder


>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:46 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to 
>> the ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That 
>> is much more doable.
>
> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement. 
>  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the 
> process, e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, 
> watershed, historic (quoting the press office) release of a document 
> that had already been leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the 
> zeitgeist in tower, this was news.  And more generally, those 
> statements made senior staff who'd previously declared they'd be 
> unaffected by any muttering among the riff raff launch an 
> unprecedented counter-offensive perception management gambit, complete 
> with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling critics that 
> their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
>
> What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more 
> focused on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the 
> conference chair declare some sessions open to the public.  One 
> imagines there will be push back from the usual suspects; it'd be good 
> to briefly make the case.  Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the 
> concrete proposals that could be problematic for the Internet and 
> offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally, these should acknowledge 
> that in some cases governments may have real legitimate concerns, but 
> point out the downsides of overreach and that there are other, more 
> effective ways to deal with them than via a multilateral treaty on 
> telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and content.  If we do 
> that, at least some delegations might have a look before tossing the 
> responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and that 
> would establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar 
> messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main 
> session in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>
> As to the other statement, I don't believe that focusing on the 
> procedural elements would be unproductive and of less value than a 
> more substantive statement, which I suspect would prove a bit 
> difficult to break new and consensual ground on.  Your dislike of 
> multistakeholderism is duly noted, but among the wider community of IG 
> mavens the procedural aspects have consistently proven easier to reach 
> consensus on, not only within CS, but with other stakeholders as well. 
>  This was demonstrated throughout WSIS and the IGF's early years.  And 
> the good work done by APC and partners on this has not been fully 
> amplified and leveraged, and there's never been more of a need to be 
> saying such things.  One need look no further than the WCIT and the 
> London Process to see why.  Such a statement can feed in directly to 
> the Taking Stock and Way Forward main session.  So I'd go with the 
> model this group has worked out through collaboration facilitated by 
> Jeremy, rather than toss it aside.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/d21076fb/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Oct 16 23:38:21 2012
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:08:21 +0530
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net> <CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <507E282D.20406@itforchange.net>


"To give you a feel of what I am talking about - I will like to put 
democratic before multistakeholder in any procedural document on IG - 
which btw is meant to cover local to national to global levels. " 
/Parminder /

  "Your dislike of multistakeholderism is duly noted.... " /Bill Drake/

Bill

I keep hoping that you will give up this kind of mischievous distortion 
of what I say/ write, especially since, when I give you the appropriate 
response you are apt to jump and say things like 'i am done with this 
discussion'.

So, you really think I am expressing dislike of multistakeholderism when 
I say that 'democratic' should go before 'multistakeholderism' in any 
governance procedural document, right. Ok, in that case, I dislike 
multistakeholderism, because my primary adherence is indeed to 
democracy. If anyone is either saying that mentioning democracy effects 
multistakeholderism, or even that democracy does not stand at a higher 
pedestal than multistakeholderism, as you clearly suggest, then i would 
gladly give up that particular version of multistakeholderism. (I 
however think that multistakeholderism is an expression of participatory 
aspects and processes of democracy, but you manifestly dont seem to 
think so.)

In the circumstances, I would also be right to say; well, Bill, your 
dislike of democracy is duly taken note of. I am indeed very 
disconcerted with an increasing expression of doubts and dislikes about 
democracy that I see in the IG space. Before we, at IT for Change, fight 
anything, we will address and fight that.

parminder





On Tuesday 16 October 2012 06:02 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> Greetings from ICANN Toronto, where some of us are trying to push the 
> inclusion of human rights in actual governance processes.
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:46 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to 
>> the ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That 
>> is much more doable.
>
> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement. 
>  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the 
> process, e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, 
> watershed, historic (quoting the press office) release of a document 
> that had already been leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the 
> zeitgeist in tower, this was news.  And more generally, those 
> statements made senior staff who'd previously declared they'd be 
> unaffected by any muttering among the riff raff launch an 
> unprecedented counter-offensive perception management gambit, complete 
> with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling critics that 
> their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
>
> What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more 
> focused on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the 
> conference chair declare some sessions open to the public.  One 
> imagines there will be push back from the usual suspects; it'd be good 
> to briefly make the case.  Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the 
> concrete proposals that could be problematic for the Internet and 
> offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally, these should acknowledge 
> that in some cases governments may have real legitimate concerns, but 
> point out the downsides of overreach and that there are other, more 
> effective ways to deal with them than via a multilateral treaty on 
> telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and content.  If we do 
> that, at least some delegations might have a look before tossing the 
> responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and that 
> would establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar 
> messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main 
> session in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>
> As to the other statement, I don't believe that focusing on the 
> procedural elements would be unproductive and of less value than a 
> more substantive statement, which I suspect would prove a bit 
> difficult to break new and consensual ground on.  Your dislike of 
> multistakeholderism is duly noted, but among the wider community of IG 
> mavens the procedural aspects have consistently proven easier to reach 
> consensus on, not only within CS, but with other stakeholders as well. 
>  This was demonstrated throughout WSIS and the IGF's early years.  And 
> the good work done by APC and partners on this has not been fully 
> amplified and leveraged, and there's never been more of a need to be 
> saying such things.  One need look no further than the WCIT and the 
> London Process to see why.  Such a statement can feed in directly to 
> the Taking Stock and Way Forward main session.  So I'd go with the 
> model this group has worked out through collaboration facilitated by 
> Jeremy, rather than toss it aside.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/f44c6d02/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct 16 23:53:19 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:53:19 +0800
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507E1E1E.5020301@itforchange.net>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net> <CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch> <507E1E1E.5020301@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <507E2BAF.40001@ciroap.org>

On 17/10/12 10:55, parminder wrote:
> My comments were wholly addressed to the track two activity. I am not
> sure what is the sudden hurry to pull out from a hat some process
> principles for IG in this compressed time, when the issue is rather
> contentious and requires to be given all the time and attention it needs.

Actually it was one year ago, at the last IGF, that some of us on this
list first committed to produce such a set of civil society principles,
and to do so by this year's IGF.  So it didn't start off in a rush,
though it may have ended up rather that way.  But by starting from what
is already there (whether it be the IRP principles as you prefer, or the
APC/CoE document as Wolfgang does, or even the Declaration of Internet
Freedom as some others may - nothing is yet set in stone), there is
still no reason for the outcome to be a rush job.

> We cant selectively chose some principles that buttress certain
> governance orders and not other kinds. We will need to go really deep,
> and go the whole hog.

That would be nice.  But the raison d'être of Best Bits is to bring
together a more diverse group (at least in terms of civil society
participants) than any of those that have collaborated on any of the
existing individual documents referenced, and none of those have gone
the whole hog to your satisfaction.  So this is a point tending against
the document being completely comprehensive, because it would weaken
support for it too much.  It's not a new dilemma, but remains a real one.

Balancing this (and an equally deliberate choice in designing this
event), there will be no Best Bits declaration - there will be a
document *at *Best Bits that individual groups can sign on to, but
nobody will be "forced" to do so.  This is factor that will allow us to
produce stronger documents than we otherwise might, because we will only
need to reach a rough consensus, not a full one.  Anyone who isn't
comfortable with a document can easily pull out from it.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/ded0b80d/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Oct 16 23:56:43 2012
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:26:43 +0530
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <FEA249F7-1445-4380-AE37-4F07EDCACD9F@uzh.ch>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3C33.70701@itforchange.net> <FEA249F7-1445-4380-AE37-4F07EDCACD9F@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <507E2C7B.1070009@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 16 October 2012 06:24 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:51 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>> I did a paper on dev agenda in IG last year which is 
>> athttp://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf 
>> . It speaks about global pubic policy issues and institutional 
>> options. Best, parminder
>
> Indeed, and basically conflates your views on enhanced cooperation 
> with the notion of a development agenda.

Bill, Jeremy asked participants to upload any background paper that they 
may want to being to the notice of the participants and I did that. Do 
you have any problem with that?


>  Do you believe it'd be easy for a diverse group to reach consensus on 
> such points in a day?

Would you please point me to where I proposed any such thing?

>
> Here's another development agenda paper 
> http://www.academia.edu/1902649/Drake_William_J._2010._IG4D_Toward_a_Development_Agenda_for_Internet_Governance._In_Internet_Governance_Creating_Opportunities_for_All---The_Fourth_Internet_Governance_Forum_Sharm_el_Sheikh_Egypt_15-18_November_2009_edited_by_William_J._Drake_57-75._New_York_The_United_Nations  that 
> focused more on the procedural side and argues for having working 
> groups under the IGF aegis, which I'd like to see for enhanced 
> cooperation (to be discussed at the event following BB 
> http://ec-event-igf2012.apc.org/programme.

Yes, IGF working groups! Sure enough. I am a great fan of them. Just 
that when a CSTD WG (working group) on IGF improvements was actually 
considering such things, our efforts to include setting up of IGF 
working groups in the WG's report seemed not to find any real support. 
Was that not the right time to ask for instituting IGF working groups.

parminder
>
> Again, I'd argue for an institution building procedural focus as 
> something that might actually be doable in the time available, and 
> useful as input to the IGF meeting.


>
> Best,
>
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/dc2a3310/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct  2 06:20:00 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:20:00 +0800
Subject: ITU statement thread
Message-ID: <506ABFD0.2030509@ciroap.org>

The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two
output documents, which a core of interested participants could join to
come up with some zero-draft text as a starting point for discussions in
Baku.

As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested we
bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am
starting two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm
beginning with the ITU statement.

I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not compared to
some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text.  But in
general terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and
unified civil society position to which most of us subscribe, not only
pushing back against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its
deficits with respect to the WSIS process criteria (openness,
multi-stakeholderism, etc), but being quite specific about the issues on
the table for WCIT.  What issues do we already know are the key ones for
our members or constituents?

So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more
progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at
http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/8be55789/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct 16 23:57:25 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:57:25 +0800
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507E282D.20406@itforchange.net>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net> <CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch> <507E282D.20406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <507E2CA5.6050406@ciroap.org>

On 17/10/12 11:38, parminder wrote:
> So, you really think I am expressing dislike of multistakeholderism
> when I say that 'democratic' should go before 'multistakeholderism' in
> any governance procedural document, right. Ok, in that case, I dislike
> multistakeholderism, because my primary adherence is indeed to democracy.

That's a very concise point that we can perhaps resolve in advance -
does anyone have a problem with "democratic" going ahead of
"multistakeholder"?  I certainly don't.  Multistakeholderism, surely, is
simply a means of democratisation.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/92f1ad0f/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Oct 17 00:18:28 2012
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:48:28 +0530
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507E2BAF.40001@ciroap.org>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net> <CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch> <507E1E1E.5020301@itforchange.net> <507E2BAF.40001@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <507E3194.1090600@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 17 October 2012 09:23 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> snip

> Actually it was one year ago, at the last IGF, that some of us on this 
> list first committed to produce such a set of civil society 
> principles, and to do so by this year's IGF. 

Jeremy, I agree such talk, and also real efforts, have been around for a 
long time. And that we must strive to take it forward. My impression 
about such principles, however, has always been that we are aiming at 
substantive principles that may also include some procedural issues. I 
have been a long-standing supporter of such efforts. In fact at the 
IGFs, it was the presenation of Brazilian ""/Principles/ for the 
Governance and use of the /Internet/" that triggered a kind of rough 
consensus for working towards such principles, which rough consensus, if 
I remember right, was captured in Nitin Desai's and perhaps also IGF 
chair's closing remarks at IGF-5. So, let us be clear about it. We are 
talking about substantive principles related to Internet and Internet 
governance and not just a list of procedural issues.

In this regard I will like to have the Internet Rights and Principles 
document of the IRP dynamic coalition, plus the Brazilian Internet 
principles document, as the starting texts. We need to move beyond 
paying lip service to inclusiveness and voices from the South. the IRP 
document have had relatively better (though still very less) inclusion 
of voices from developing countires, and Brazilian doc is of course a 
(really) multistakeholder effort from a developing country.

I would also like to help in anchoring the Internet principles line of 
activity, if it is going to take place.

parminder

> So it didn't start off in a rush, though it may have ended up rather 
> that way.  But by starting from what is already there (whether it be 
> the IRP principles as you prefer, or the APC/CoE document as Wolfgang 
> does, or even the Declaration of Internet Freedom as some others may - 
> nothing is yet set in stone), there is still no reason for the outcome 
> to be a rush job.
>
>> We cant selectively chose some principles that buttress certain 
>> governance orders and not other kinds. We will need to go really 
>> deep, and go the whole hog.
>
> That would be nice.  But the raison d'être of Best Bits is to bring 
> together a more diverse group (at least in terms of civil society 
> participants) than any of those that have collaborated on any of the 
> existing individual documents referenced, and none of those have gone 
> the whole hog to your satisfaction.  So this is a point tending 
> against the document being completely comprehensive, because it would 
> weaken support for it too much.  It's not a new dilemma, but remains a 
> real one.
>
> Balancing this (and an equally deliberate choice in designing this 
> event), there will be no Best Bits declaration - there will be a 
> document *at *Best Bits that individual groups can sign on to, but 
> nobody will be "forced" to do so.  This is factor that will allow us 
> to produce stronger documents than we otherwise might, because we will 
> only need to reach a rough consensus, not a full one.  Anyone who 
> isn't comfortable with a document can easily pull out from it.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* 
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/2ab23748/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Oct 17 00:31:35 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:31:35 +0800
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <507E34A7.9000108@ciroap.org>

On 16/10/12 18:46, parminder wrote:
> I remain sceptical of how this exercise is going to be done and
> concluded. for a long time I believed that we were looking at
> substantive Internet principles but now I see we are only taking about
> procedural principles for IG. First of all I think we need to do
> substantive principles first

This doesn't necessarily count against using the APC/CoE document rather
than the IRP, as both of them have procedural and substantive elements
to them, just with a different emphasis.  And as you say (and as I also
recently argued myself with a private sector stakeholder, Peter
Hellmonds, in a Facebook exchange), procedural issues are never
substantively or morally neutral - so I'm not sure that either is
necessarily "easier" to agree upon.

Rather I think it has to do with breadth; the more we try to cover,
whether the issues are procedural or substantive, the more divisive
issues we will encounter, and - without wanting to prejudge anything -
your example of neutral public funding for IG institutions may be one
that several participants at Best Bits may speak against, and therefore
one that would end up being omitted if we are to agree on anything at all.

Of course, this is nothing new to you, because within the Internet
Governance Caucus when I was coordinating it, there were statements to
which almost everyone else agreed, that IT for Change could not, and
this is why you didn't even try to get the IGC to agree on your most
recent "joint civil society" statement to WSIS (which I supported, with
reservations), but assembled a group of southern NGOs, some of whom
hadn't previously worked on Internet governance, as the signatories.

Nothing of the above is any kind of criticism of you or IT for Change as
you know (I hope) that I have the highest respect for you and that I
personally agree with you on many or most issues.

But I just make the point that it may be that the document that we end
up with at Best Bits may not be one that meets all of your expectations
of it, precisely because the group is so diverse.  If anything it's even
more diverse than the IGC, as we have some US-based NGOs who are not IGC
members, and at least one of which has a more free-market approach than
what you do.

To take another example, we will have some Muslim participants at the
meeting, so there may be differences of opinion on the extent to which,
if at all, the distribution of videos such as "The Innocence of Muslims"
is a legitimate subject of Internet regulation at either the national or
supranational level.

Does this mean that we will be unable to agree on anything meaningful? 
I very firmly think not.  I have confidence that we will be able to
reach a wide (though not full) consensus on something that is both broad
and also meaningful.  That's one of the main reasons I'm doing all this.

> Jeremy, can we have a list of people on this elist, and those who are
> now confirmed to attend the meeting. Thanks.

For the people on the list, visit
http://lists.igcaucus.org/review/bestbits and log in with your IGC
credentials, and if that doesn't work let me know and I'll send the list
by reply.

I'll send a separate message with those who are now confirmed to attend,
because some people may have stopped reading by now (tl;dr) and I want
to make sure that everyone sees it.**

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/f0d9043a/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Oct 17 00:56:24 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:56:24 +0800
Subject: Registered attendees (so far)
Message-ID: <507E3A78.3080806@ciroap.org>

As requested by Parminder, here is the list of 26 confirmed attendees so
far.  I am not posting to the public website in case there are privacy
concerns, and I can also expunge this mail from the list archive if
anyone wishes me to.

*If you are /not/ on this list and you will be at Best Bits, you need to
register now at **http://bestbits.igf-online.net/registration/.*  I know
that there are some who need to register and haven't, because we're
providing travel or accommodation support to some of them!

Andrew Puddephatt
Anja Kovacs
Avri Doria
Brett Solomon
Claudio Ruiz
Deborah Brown
Dixie Hawtin
Emma Llanso
Gene Kimmelman
Iarla Flynn
Jeremy Malcolm
Jochai Ben-Avie
Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
Joy Liddicoat
Katitza Rodriguez
Kevin Bankston
Matthew Shears
Norbert Bollow
Parminder Jeet Singh
Premila Kumar
Raquel Gatto
Rashmi Rangnath
Shahzad Ahmad
Valeria Betancourt
William Drake

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/3a28109d/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Oct 17 01:31:42 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:31:42 +0800
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507E3194.1090600@itforchange.net>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org> <507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net> <CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch> <507E1E1E.5020301@itforchange.net> <507E2BAF.40001@ciroap.org> <507E3194.1090600@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <507E42BE.9060603@ciroap.org>

On 17/10/12 12:18, parminder wrote:
> In this regard I will like to have the Internet Rights and Principles
> document of the IRP dynamic coalition, plus the Brazilian Internet
> principles document, as the starting texts. We need to move beyond
> paying lip service to inclusiveness and voices from the South. the IRP
> document have had relatively better (though still very less) inclusion
> of voices from developing countires, and Brazilian doc is of course a
> (really) multistakeholder effort from a developing country.

Good call on the Brazilian principles, which for others' reference, is here:

http://www.cgi.br/english/regulations/resolution2009-003.htm

I've put together a list to over a dozen such statements and codes,
which you can find here:

http://www.igcaucus.org/links

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/f9fd9950/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Wed Oct 17 08:43:44 2012
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:43:44 -0400
Subject: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <507E2CA5.6050406@ciroap.org>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org>
	<507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net>
	<CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch>
	<507E282D.20406@itforchange.net>
	<507E2CA5.6050406@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA_fKudLmnog7ypjxxZt081LZP24W+tBs1RA8duwCH7woA@mail.gmail.com>

I'd like someone to clarify how they mean "democratic" -- there are many
aspects to a democratic process and structure:

1.  Do you mean "democratic" to reflect equal participation across
stakeholder communities, using open, transparent processes to debate points
of view and suggest policies/principes? And/or

2.  Do you mean "democratic" to reflect a system of voting to make binding
decisions for the participants in a multistakeholder process?

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  On 17/10/12 11:38, parminder wrote:
>
> So, you really think I am expressing dislike of multistakeholderism when I
> say that 'democratic' should go before 'multistakeholderism' in any
> governance procedural document, right. Ok, in that case, I dislike
> multistakeholderism, because my primary adherence is indeed to democracy.
>
>
> That's a very concise point that we can perhaps resolve in advance - does
> anyone have a problem with "democratic" going ahead of "multistakeholder"?
> I certainly don't.  Multistakeholderism, surely, is simply a means of
> democratisation.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/bc3233bb/attachment.htm>

From amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se  Wed Oct 17 14:42:53 2012
From: amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se (Amelia Andersdotter)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:42:53 +0300
Subject: Registered attendees (so far)
In-Reply-To: <507E3A78.3080806@ciroap.org>
References: <507E3A78.3080806@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <507EFC2D.7080508@piratpartiet.se>

I will be in Baku at this time, and would like to come but I'm not sure 
how the assembly feels about publically elected official presence at the 
NGO event. Apologies for not contacting you sooner about that.

best regards,

Amelia Andersdotter (Piratpartiet)

Pe 17.10.2012 07:56, Jeremy Malcolm a scris:
> As requested by Parminder, here is the list of 26 confirmed attendees 
> so far.  I am not posting to the public website in case there are 
> privacy concerns, and I can also expunge this mail from the list 
> archive if anyone wishes me to.
>
> *If you are /not/ on this list and you will be at Best Bits, you need 
> to register now at **http://bestbits.igf-online.net/registration/.* I 
> know that there are some who need to register and haven't, because 
> we're providing travel or accommodation support to some of them!
>
> Andrew Puddephatt
> Anja Kovacs
> Avri Doria
> Brett Solomon
> Claudio Ruiz
> Deborah Brown
> Dixie Hawtin
> Emma Llanso
> Gene Kimmelman
> Iarla Flynn
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Jochai Ben-Avie
> Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
> Joy Liddicoat
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Kevin Bankston
> Matthew Shears
> Norbert Bollow
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Premila Kumar
> Raquel Gatto
> Rashmi Rangnath
> Shahzad Ahmad
> Valeria Betancourt
> William Drake
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* 
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>


-- 
Amelia Andersdotter
Member of the European Parliament

Brussels office:   +32(0)228 45922
Strasbourg office: +33(0)3881 75922
Mobile:            +32(0)470 460 922

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/12c77864/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Oct 17 15:20:30 2012
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:20:30 -0400
Subject: Registered attendees (so far)
In-Reply-To: <507EFC2D.7080508@piratpartiet.se>
References: <507E3A78.3080806@ciroap.org> <507EFC2D.7080508@piratpartiet.se>
Message-ID: <4D94AFD0-CA3F-4693-955B-BBFEA66324C3@acm.org>

I would love to see you there.

avri

On 17 Oct 2012, at 14:42, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:

> I will be in Baku at this time, and would like to come but I'm not sure how the assembly feels about publically elected official presence at the NGO event. Apologies for not contacting you sooner about that.
> 
> best regards,
> 
> Amelia Andersdotter (Piratpartiet)
> 
> Pe 17.10.2012 07:56, Jeremy Malcolm a scris:
>> As requested by Parminder, here is the list of 26 confirmed attendees so far.  I am not posting to the public website in case there are privacy concerns, and I can also expunge this mail from the list archive if anyone wishes me to.
>> 
>> If you are not on this list and you will be at Best Bits, you need to register now at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/registration/.  I know that there are some who need to register and haven't, because we're providing travel or accommodation support to some of them!
>> 
>> Andrew Puddephatt
>> Anja Kovacs
>> Avri Doria
>> Brett Solomon
>> Claudio Ruiz
>> Deborah Brown
>> Dixie Hawtin
>> Emma Llanso
>> Gene Kimmelman
>> Iarla Flynn
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Jochai Ben-Avie
>> Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
>> Joy Liddicoat
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Kevin Bankston
>> Matthew Shears
>> Norbert Bollow
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Premila Kumar
>> Raquel Gatto
>> Rashmi Rangnath
>> Shahzad Ahmad
>> Valeria Betancourt
>> William Drake
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Policy Officer
>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>> 
>> Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission
>> 
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>> 
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Amelia Andersdotter
> Member of the European Parliament
> 
> Brussels office:   +32(0)228 45922
> Strasbourg office: +33(0)3881 75922
> Mobile:            +32(0)470 460 922
> 



From ellanso at cdt.org  Wed Oct 17 16:40:11 2012
From: ellanso at cdt.org (Emma Llanso)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:40:11 -0400
Subject: ITU statement thread
In-Reply-To: <506ABFD0.2030509@ciroap.org>
References: <506ABFD0.2030509@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <507F17AB.5010708@cdt.org>

Hi all,

Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in another 
thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to some of 
the existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many of you 
are familiar with already!), including:

https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet
http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/

In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns, CDT has 
identified several categories of proposals that both raise human rights 
concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at WCIT.  I've 
included some discussion and text of proposals below, and would be very 
curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific issues raise concerns.

Best,
Emma

1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a new 
provision that would give states the right to know where traffic has 
been routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for security 
and fraud purposes.  If this provision is applied to regulate the route 
of Internet traffic, it would require technical changes to the Internet 
that would give governments additional tools to block traffic to and 
from certain websites or countries.  Regulations on routing could also 
enable greater tracking of users by their IP addresses. This provision 
is put forward in the name of security and fraud, but their necessity, 
proportionality, and impact on the right to privacy and freedom of 
expression has not been fully assessed.

Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have proposed that 
"A Member State shall have the right to know through where its traffic 
has been routed, and should have the right to impose any routing 
regulations in this regard, for purposes of security and countering 
fraud." A similar proposal has been made by the Regional Commonwealth 
group of states (RCC) and is also supported by Russia.

2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of telecommunications 
- Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member States to 
ensure access and use of international telecommunications services, but 
allows an exception for when telecommunications is used "for the purpose 
of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, 
national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other 
States, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature."  The Internet 
has become an essential tool for the exercise of a range of human 
rights.  This proposal is inconsistent with human rights standards that 
articulate when governments may permissibly limit the right to freedom 
of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR. 
  This proposal could be used to legitimize
restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of 
expression, association, and assembly.

3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European Telecommunications 
Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how networks on 
the Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a 
"sending party pays" system, where content providers would have to pay 
fees to reach the user who wants to access that content.  Some civil 
society organizations believe this system would result in increased 
costs of Internet access for users, especially in less developed 
countries, since the fees companies pay would be then passed on to 
users.  The ETNO proposal also encourages ISPs to make special deals 
with content companies to prioritize their content, which undermines net 
neutrality online.  Taken together, the effect of the ETNO  proposal 
would be to increase the cost of Internet access and limit equal access 
to information online.  Again, the full impact of the ETNO proposal on 
Internet access and the ability of individuals to seek and receive 
information online must be fully assessed.


-- 
Emma J. Llansó
Policy Counsel
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>


On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two 
> output documents, which a core of interested participants could join 
> to come up with some zero-draft text as a starting point for 
> discussions in Baku.
>
> As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested we 
> bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am 
> starting two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm 
> beginning with the ITU statement.
>
> I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not compared 
> to some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text.  But in 
> general terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and 
> unified civil society position to which most of us subscribe, not only 
> pushing back against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its 
> deficits with respect to the WSIS process criteria (openness, 
> multi-stakeholderism, etc), but being quite specific about the issues 
> on the table for WCIT.  What issues do we already know are the key 
> ones for our members or constituents?
>
> So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more 
> progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at 
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* 
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121017/033821f3/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Oct 20 14:29:33 2012
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:29:33 +0200
Subject: "democratic" (was Re: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits)
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA_fKudLmnog7ypjxxZt081LZP24W+tBs1RA8duwCH7woA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org>
	<507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net>
	<CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch>
	<507E282D.20406@itforchange.net>
	<507E2CA5.6050406@ciroap.org>
	<CA+4KnA_fKudLmnog7ypjxxZt081LZP24W+tBs1RA8duwCH7woA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20121020202933.3e87cef2@quill.bollow.ch>

Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like someone to clarify how they mean "democratic" -- there are
> many aspects to a democratic process and structure:
> 
> 1.  Do you mean "democratic" to reflect equal participation across
> stakeholder communities, using open, transparent processes to debate
> points of view and suggest policies/principes? And/or
> 
> 2.  Do you mean "democratic" to reflect a system of voting to make
> binding decisions for the participants in a multistakeholder process?

I understand "democratic" to mean that decisions are made in a way
in which all ultimate decision-making power flows (more or less
directly) from the will of the people expressed according to the
principle "one person, one vote".

Anything which does not conform to this principle does not deserve to
be called "democratic".

I am honestly amazed how many people in Internet governance discussions
seem willing to compromise on this point.

Multistakeholderism is not democratic. But it is a step forward from
those governance arrangements where it is considered normal to deny
public interest representatives and ordinary people effective
opportunities to participate in the relevant discussions, while the
representatives of industry special interests are of course given such
opportunities. And as Jeremy suggests, multistakeholderism is something
that can be built upon in the context of pushing for real
democratization. In fact I would argue that my ECTF proposal (see
http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1 ) is a concrete proposal towards
precisely that objective.

On the general topic of democracy and its importance, I'd like to
recommend to everyone to read Amartya Sen's essay "Democracy as a
Universal Value." (Journal of Democracy, Vol. 10, No. 4, October 1999,
pp. 3-16. The article is available online at
http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/article/democracy-universal-value ).

Key passages include the following:

* "What exactly is democracy? We must not identify democracy with
  majority rule. Democracy has complex demands, which certainly include
  voting and respect for election results, but it also requires the
  protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements,
  and the guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution
  of news and fair comment. Even elections can be deeply defective if
  they occur without the different sides getting an adequate
  opportunity to present their respective cases, or without the
  electorate enjoying the freedom to obtain news and to consider the
  views of the competing protagonists. Democracy is a demanding system,
  and not just a mechanical condition (like majority rule) taken in
  isolation." (pp. 9-10)

* "Democracy's claim to be valuable does not rest on just one particular
  merit. There is a plurality of virtues here, including, first, the
  /intrinsic/ importance of political participation and freedom in human
  life; second, the /instrumental/ importance of political incentives in
  keeping governments responsible and accountable; and third, the
  /constructive/ role of democracy in the formation of values and in the
  understanding of needs, rights, and duties." (p. 11)

Greetings,
Norbert


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct  2 06:44:58 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:44:58 +0800
Subject: Internet governance principles thread
Message-ID: <506AC5AA.3070504@ciroap.org>

This is a counterpart to the previous thread, for ideas about what
should go into the Internet governance principles statement for the IGF
that we develop at Best Bits.  Whilst we will be working on this
face-to-face, it is sensible not to cram our work into one session when
preparatory work can be done online.

Indeed there has already been a lot of work done on Internet governance
principles, some of which we have discussed here already, including that
of the IRP Coalition (the "punchy" version is found at
http://irpcharter.org/campaign/ - these are based around substantive
human rights) and the Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on
Internet governance principles (found at
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773, scroll down - these give
more emphasis to governance norms).

Some may ask, what is the purpose of the Best Bits Internet governance
principles that is not served by any existing document?  After all, one
of the purposes of Best Bits is to facilitate consolidation of our
efforts where appropriate, rather than further fragmentation.  The
answer is that there is still no broad civil society statement of
principles that is:

  * from civil society (the IRP document is multi-stakeholder, the CoE
    one is governmental); and
  * diverse (the Declaration of Internet Freedom was mostly drafted in
    the US); and
  * is addressed to the IGF as our input into what is hoped will become
    a multi-stakeholder statement of principles (or "Framework of
    Commitment" as Wolfgang calls it) in 2014.

That said, we don't want to reinvent the wheel and we do want to draw
upon and acknowledge existing work.

So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more
progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at
http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/IG-principles.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/db18b013/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Oct 20 16:17:13 2012
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:17:13 +0600
Subject: "democratic" (was Re: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits)
In-Reply-To: <20121020202933.3e87cef2@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <507D0C6B.2030907@ciroap.org>	<507D3B11.2020005@itforchange.net>	<CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch>	<507E282D.20406@itforchange.net>	<507E2CA5.6050406@ciroap.org>	<CA+4KnA_fKudLmnog7ypjxxZt081LZP24W+tBs1RA8duwCH7woA@mail.gmail.com> <20121020202933.3e87cef2@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <031101cdaeff$e7d8c8d0$b78a5a70$@gmail.com>

+1

M

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 12:30 AM
To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: "democratic" (was Re: Summary of ways to participate in Best Bits)

Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like someone to clarify how they mean "democratic" -- there are 
> many aspects to a democratic process and structure:
> 
> 1.  Do you mean "democratic" to reflect equal participation across 
> stakeholder communities, using open, transparent processes to debate 
> points of view and suggest policies/principes? And/or
> 
> 2.  Do you mean "democratic" to reflect a system of voting to make 
> binding decisions for the participants in a multistakeholder process?

I understand "democratic" to mean that decisions are made in a way in which
all ultimate decision-making power flows (more or less
directly) from the will of the people expressed according to the principle
"one person, one vote".

Anything which does not conform to this principle does not deserve to be
called "democratic".

I am honestly amazed how many people in Internet governance discussions seem
willing to compromise on this point.

Multistakeholderism is not democratic. But it is a step forward from those
governance arrangements where it is considered normal to deny public
interest representatives and ordinary people effective opportunities to
participate in the relevant discussions, while the representatives of
industry special interests are of course given such opportunities. And as
Jeremy suggests, multistakeholderism is something that can be built upon in
the context of pushing for real democratization. In fact I would argue that
my ECTF proposal (see
http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1 ) is a concrete proposal towards
precisely that objective.

On the general topic of democracy and its importance, I'd like to recommend
to everyone to read Amartya Sen's essay "Democracy as a Universal Value."
(Journal of Democracy, Vol. 10, No. 4, October 1999, pp. 3-16. The article
is available online at
http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/article/democracy-universal-value ).

Key passages include the following:

* "What exactly is democracy? We must not identify democracy with
  majority rule. Democracy has complex demands, which certainly include
  voting and respect for election results, but it also requires the
  protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements,
  and the guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution
  of news and fair comment. Even elections can be deeply defective if
  they occur without the different sides getting an adequate
  opportunity to present their respective cases, or without the
  electorate enjoying the freedom to obtain news and to consider the
  views of the competing protagonists. Democracy is a demanding system,
  and not just a mechanical condition (like majority rule) taken in
  isolation." (pp. 9-10)

* "Democracy's claim to be valuable does not rest on just one particular
  merit. There is a plurality of virtues here, including, first, the
  /intrinsic/ importance of political participation and freedom in human
  life; second, the /instrumental/ importance of political incentives in
  keeping governments responsible and accountable; and third, the
  /constructive/ role of democracy in the formation of values and in the
  understanding of needs, rights, and duties." (p. 11)

Greetings,
Norbert



From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Oct 22 03:02:03 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:02:03 +0800
Subject: Internet governance principles thread
In-Reply-To: <506AC5AA.3070504@ciroap.org>
References: <506AC5AA.3070504@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5084EF6B.8010108@ciroap.org>

On 02/10/12 18:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> This is a counterpart to the previous thread, for ideas about what
> should go into the Internet governance principles statement for the
> IGF that we develop at Best Bits.  Whilst we will be working on this
> face-to-face, it is sensible not to cram our work into one session
> when preparatory work can be done online.

In previous discussions here, nobody has disagreed that we should begin
from an existing document in developing our statement of Internet
governance principles.  However differences of opinion have been
expressed over what would be the most suitable document to use.

Here is a survey which I would encourage you to take, which I presents
four of the most obvious choices, and asks you to rank them according to
your preference:

http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=78947&lang=en

Please take a few minutes to take the above survey, and I'll present the
options back here in one week.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121022/d16920df/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Oct 24 22:33:28 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:33:28 +0800
Subject: Final registration list
Message-ID: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org>

A couple of people have requested the final list of registered participants, so here it is. If you are not shown here and plan to be at Best Bits in person, please let me know and register now at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/.  Thanks!

Andrew Puddephatt
Anja Kovacs
Anriette Esterhuysen
Antonio Medina Gomez
Arthit Suriyawongkul
Avri Doria
Brett Solomon
Claudio Ruiz
Deborah Brown
Dixie Hawtin
Elonnai Hickok
Emma Llanso
Gene Kimmelman
Iarla Flynn
Imran Ahmed Shah
Jeremy Malcolm
Jochai Ben-Avie
Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
Joy Liddicoat
Katitza Rodriguez
Kevin Bankston
Matthew Shears
Michael Gurstein
Norbert Bollow
Parminder Jeet Singh
Pranesh Prakash
Premila Kumar
Raquel Gatto
Rashmi Rangnath
Shita Laksmi
Tapani Tarvainen
Theresa Züger
Valeria Betancourt
William Drake
  
-- 
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek 
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121025/01e9d749/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu Oct 25 07:53:13 2012
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:53:13 +0200
Subject: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch>

Hi Jeremy

Good to see this is moving along.  Is there any chance we could attach a bit more info to the names for the benefit of those who don't know each other?  Even just links to home pages would help...

Bill

On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> A couple of people have requested the final list of registered participants, so here it is. If you are not shown here and plan to be at Best Bits in person, please let me know and register now at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/.  Thanks!
> 
> Andrew Puddephatt
> Anja Kovacs
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Antonio Medina Gomez
> Arthit Suriyawongkul
> Avri Doria
> Brett Solomon
> Claudio Ruiz
> Deborah Brown
> Dixie Hawtin
> Elonnai Hickok
> Emma Llanso
> Gene Kimmelman
> Iarla Flynn
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Jochai Ben-Avie
> Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
> Joy Liddicoat
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Kevin Bankston
> Matthew Shears
> Michael Gurstein
> Norbert Bollow
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Pranesh Prakash
> Premila Kumar
> Raquel Gatto
> Rashmi Rangnath
> Shita Laksmi
> Tapani Tarvainen
> Theresa Züger
> Valeria Betancourt
> William Drake
>   
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek 
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121025/0c9ab846/attachment.htm>

From gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Oct 25 08:11:06 2012
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:11:06 -0500
Subject: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org> <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CALCecM9vmYYDZaDt0_aKhRGuwK=f7Q-Vz4q69zd-=5JvPbKZOQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jeremy and al,
I see you have removed my name from the registration list, as I will not be
present in Baku. I also note that remote participants are not suggested to
register.

If this list is to assist networking and exchange of ideas and knowledge, I
think that those of us who are remote would appreciate being included in
the list, so our 'invisible' presence and interest are perceived.

While the list's first purpose surely was for planning meeting room
purposes, now that it is being circulated for networking exchange, it
becomes even more valuable to remote participants.  This is an important
acknowledgement of our presence.

I urge you to encourage remote participants to register, and to be treated
as full participants, not just observers of this important meeting, as much
as is possible. Remote participation is one of the 'Best Bits' of the IGF,
and I know you support it fully. One of the points the IGF Remote
Participation Working Group prioritizes is the registration of remote
participants as equal members of a meeting.

I will re-register, knowing my name will stay on the list :)

With much appreciation for your energy and organization, and everyone's
input,

Ginger
Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
**
**



On 25 October 2012 06:53, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Jeremy
>
> Good to see this is moving along.  Is there any chance we could attach a
> bit more info to the names for the benefit of those who don't know each
> other?  Even just links to home pages would help...
>
>    Bill
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> A couple of people have requested the final list of registered
> participants, so here it is. If you are not shown here and plan to be at
> Best Bits in person, please let me know and register now at
> http://bestbits.igf-online.net/.  Thanks!
>
> Andrew Puddephatt
> Anja Kovacs
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Antonio Medina Gomez
> Arthit Suriyawongkul
> Avri Doria
> Brett Solomon
> Claudio Ruiz
> Deborah Brown
> Dixie Hawtin
> Elonnai Hickok
> Emma Llanso
> Gene Kimmelman
> Iarla Flynn
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Jochai Ben-Avie
> Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
> Joy Liddicoat
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Kevin Bankston
> Matthew Shears
> Michael Gurstein
> Norbert Bollow
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Pranesh Prakash
> Premila Kumar
> Raquel Gatto
> Rashmi Rangnath
> Shita Laksmi
> Tapani Tarvainen
> Theresa Züger
> Valeria Betancourt
> William Drake
>  * *
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121025/34d274ea/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Thu Oct 25 09:16:46 2012
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:16:46 -0400
Subject: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org> <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <EEAE5930-AADD-4DB4-BA49-E07CA2DFCC46@acm.org>

Hi,

If they just put a little (r) beside any remote participation registration, it will be clear - and we will know which methods will work for finding them and to talk.

Which tech are we using fro remote participation?

avri



On 25 Oct 2012, at 07:53, William Drake wrote:

> Hi Jeremy
> 
> Good to see this is moving along.  Is there any chance we could attach a bit more info to the names for the benefit of those who don't know each other?  Even just links to home pages would help...
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 
>> A couple of people have requested the final list of registered participants, so here it is. If you are not shown here and plan to be at Best Bits in person, please let me know and register now at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/.  Thanks!
>> 
>> Andrew Puddephatt
>> Anja Kovacs
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Antonio Medina Gomez
>> Arthit Suriyawongkul
>> Avri Doria
>> Brett Solomon
>> Claudio Ruiz
>> Deborah Brown
>> Dixie Hawtin
>> Elonnai Hickok
>> Emma Llanso
>> Gene Kimmelman
>> Iarla Flynn
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Jochai Ben-Avie
>> Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
>> Joy Liddicoat
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Kevin Bankston
>> Matthew Shears
>> Michael Gurstein
>> Norbert Bollow
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Premila Kumar
>> Raquel Gatto
>> Rashmi Rangnath
>> Shita Laksmi
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> Theresa Züger
>> Valeria Betancourt
>> William Drake
>>   
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek 
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 



From william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu Oct 25 10:21:01 2012
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:21:01 +0200
Subject: ITU statement thread
In-Reply-To: <507F17AB.5010708@cdt.org>
References: <506ABFD0.2030509@ciroap.org> <507F17AB.5010708@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <624F24AB-8AB0-463C-9D7F-60091CA78C03@uzh.ch>

Hi everyone

Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.

A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on possible ways to boot up this process.  One option considered was to have some of the folks that most closely follow the issues around the two statements get started with some drafting of bits for collective consideration, but we ultimately decided this was a bad idea.  With a diverse group, some of whom may not have worked together before, it seemed better to move in a completely inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so that anyone who wants to follow or weigh in can do so at the most formative stages.  Setting up these lists seemed a good way to get that started, and we might want to try pushing as far as we can before meeting so the F2F bit is less stressed.  So let's see what we can do?

I guess the first and foundational question is what style of letter with what principal focus.  I've stated my views previously,


On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:

>> 
>> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to the ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is much more doable. 
> 
> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement.  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the process, e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, watershed, historic (quoting the press office) release of a document that had already been leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was news.  And more generally, those statements made senior staff who'd previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering among the riff raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive perception management gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling critics that their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
> 
> What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more focused on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the conference chair declare some sessions open to the public.  One imagines there will be push back from the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case.  Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that could be problematic for the Internet and offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally, these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may have real legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of overreach and that there are other, more effective ways to deal with them than via a multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and content.  If we do that, at least some delegations might have a look before tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and that would establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main session in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.



So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up the main topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and each prepare a tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point conclusions, that sort of a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is overreaching and likely to have unforeseen negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go about addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred language.  Maybe not in that order, but you see what I mean.  Aggregation of and editing for consistent style a bunch of such mini-statements would be fairly easy to do in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau and closing, and voila, we'd have the sort of input document delegates are used to reading, and perhaps one that wouldn't head straight to the circular file.

Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make references to civil society thinks this or feels that.  Many delegates read that as "fifth column for Western domination thinks this or feels that."  They know who we are, basically.  Let's not stand around calling attention to it, and just stick to the issues at hand.

At least, that's what I'd do.

Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start in on?

Best,

Bill




On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in another thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to some of the existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many of you are familiar with already!), including: 
> 
> https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
> https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet
> http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/
> 
> In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns, CDT has identified several categories of proposals that both raise human rights concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at WCIT.  I've included some discussion and text of proposals below, and would be very curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific issues raise concerns.
> 
> Best,
> Emma
> 
> 1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a new provision that would give states the right to know where traffic has been routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for security and fraud purposes.  If this provision is applied to regulate the route of Internet traffic, it would require technical changes to the Internet that would give governments additional tools to block traffic to and from certain websites or countries.  Regulations on routing could also enable greater tracking of users by their IP addresses. This provision is put forward in the name of security and fraud, but their necessity, proportionality, and impact on the right to privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully assessed.
> 
> Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have proposed that "A Member State shall have the right to know through where its traffic has been routed, and should have the right to impose any routing regulations in this regard, for purposes of security and countering fraud." A similar proposal has been made by the Regional Commonwealth group of states (RCC) and is also supported by Russia.
> 
> 2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of telecommunications - Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
> states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member States to ensure access and use of international telecommunications services, but allows an exception for when telecommunications is used "for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other States, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature."  The Internet has become an essential tool for the exercise of a range of human rights.  This proposal is inconsistent with human rights standards that articulate when governments may permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR.  This proposal could be used to legitimize
> restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly.
> 
> 3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
> Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how networks on the Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a "sending party pays" system, where content providers would have to pay fees to reach the user who wants to access that content.  Some civil society organizations believe this system would result in increased costs of Internet access for users, especially in less developed countries, since the fees companies pay would be then passed on to users.  The ETNO proposal also encourages ISPs to make special deals with content companies to prioritize their content, which undermines net neutrality online.  Taken together, the effect of the ETNO  proposal would be to increase the cost of Internet access and limit equal access to information online.  Again, the full impact of the ETNO proposal on Internet access and the ability of individuals to seek and receive information online must be fully assessed.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Emma J. Llansó
> Policy Counsel
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech
> 
> 
> On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two output documents, which a core of interested participants could join to come up with some zero-draft text as a starting point for discussions in Baku.
>> 
>> As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested we bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am starting two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm beginning with the ITU statement.
>> 
>> I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not compared to some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text.  But in general terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and unified civil society position to which most of us subscribe, not only pushing back against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its deficits with respect to the WSIS process criteria (openness, multi-stakeholderism, etc), but being quite specific about the issues on the table for WCIT.  What issues do we already know are the key ones for our members or constituents?
>> 
>> So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Policy Officer
>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>> 
>> Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission
>> 
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>> 
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121025/4bccc4ab/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Oct 25 11:05:43 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:05:43 +0800
Subject: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <CALCecM9vmYYDZaDt0_aKhRGuwK=f7Q-Vz4q69zd-=5JvPbKZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org> <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch> <CALCecM9vmYYDZaDt0_aKhRGuwK=f7Q-Vz4q69zd-=5JvPbKZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <84C83100-06D8-448B-BA4B-B1159DEEFECE@ciroap.org>

On 25/10/2012, at 8:11 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> I see you have removed my name from the registration list, as I will not be present in Baku. I also note that remote participants are not suggested to register.
> 
> If this list is to assist networking and exchange of ideas and knowledge, I think that those of us who are remote would appreciate being included in the list, so our 'invisible' presence and interest are perceived. 
> 
> While the list's first purpose surely was for planning meeting room purposes, now that it is being circulated for networking exchange, it becomes even more valuable to remote participants.  This is an important acknowledgement of our presence. 
> 
> I urge you to encourage remote participants to register, and to be treated as full participants, not just observers of this important meeting, as much as is possible. Remote participation is one of the 'Best Bits' of the IGF, and I know you support it fully. One of the points the IGF Remote Participation Working Group prioritizes is the registration of remote participants as equal members of a meeting.
> 
> I will re-register, knowing my name will stay on the list :)


I didn't remove you, which means if you had registered before then we didn't get it - Tapani had also reported that his registration wasn't recorded, so I guess the system is not 100% reliable.

Can I ask, though, that you (and others) hold off registering using the "Registration" link for now for two reasons:

(a) Registering that way doesn't actually make your details visible to anyone.  In order to make the list that I sent, had to manually copy and paste the names out of registration emails sent to me.

(b) It is important, for logistical reasons, that we know who will be present in person.  A few new registrations have just come in, and if they are only attending remotely (following your lead), we don't know that because they had no way to signal this.

So please hold on for a while until we put a better registration mechanism in place for remote participants.  Thanks!

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121025/55fb8548/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Oct 25 11:29:37 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:29:37 +0800
Subject: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org> <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <15C3B112-B756-49E9-8D88-B14698A13BAB@ciroap.org>

On 25/10/2012, at 7:53 PM, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:

> Hi Jeremy
> 
> Good to see this is moving along.  Is there any chance we could attach a bit more info to the names for the benefit of those who don't know each other?  Even just links to home pages would help...

Please bear with me, I will work on a new facility to allow this, and to allow remote participants to register, over the weekend.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121025/100c4cb5/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Oct 25 11:30:57 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:30:57 +0800
Subject: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <EEAE5930-AADD-4DB4-BA49-E07CA2DFCC46@acm.org>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org> <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch> <EEAE5930-AADD-4DB4-BA49-E07CA2DFCC46@acm.org>
Message-ID: <58B5C967-B349-4EE4-8A1F-D9E58FC8DFDB@ciroap.org>

On 25/10/2012, at 9:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Which tech are we using fro remote participation?


ustream.tv, which is embedded into the website at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/streaming/

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121025/4feac28a/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Tue Oct  2 07:45:27 2012
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:45:27 +0200
Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org>
References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> <506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5CBD2118-9564-49C5-B009-467DBE5920CC@uzh.ch>

Hi Jeremy

Thanks for this.  Personally, I remain of the view that if we are going to produce a serious statement on WCIT that is worth asking the ITU secretariat to distribute to every government's delegation, and if we are going to produce a a serious statement on principles that is worth trying to inject into the IGF somehow (perhaps as an input to the principles part of the Taking Stock main session), then we need to maximize the time available for each.  Hence, my message of 9 Sept. proposed two focused days.  However, I understand that a number of folks also want to discuss broader questions about growing and linking activist IGF networks, so you've included the bookend sessions

Day 1  09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review, and 
Day 2 15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps

This goes a way toward squaring the circle between these baseline concerns.  But I have two further questions:

*There's an asymmetry in the time devoted to the two statements.  Day 2 has two 1:45 hr and one 1 hr. sessions on principles, whereas Day has only two 1:45 hr sessions on WCIT.  I don't think the WCIT one will be easier and take less time, especially as we'll be making an intervention in a treaty negotiation where our views are really not all that welcome or valued.  So I think it ought to get the same amount of time as the principles effort.  This could be achieved by eliminating or shortening the session on enhanced cooperation, which again is the subject of a full day meeting the day after BB. I'm sure we'll all attend that anyway, so why repeat?  And if we get to the back end of the WCIT drafting piece and aren't completely done, which is entirely possible, what would we do—send whomever off to another room to keep at it, while the other chunk of people switch gears to talk about EC?  And then we'd have to find some time to reconvene in plenary to get the buy in of the EC attendees?

So I'd propose keeping your bookend sessions for people who want the general discussion but otherwise making the rest of the days symmetric.  Starting online threads for pre-meeting discussion of the statements is great idea and maybe we'll push the balls downfield before we meet, but we all have enough experience with statements to know these exercises can be time consuming when we get F2F.

*Again, I wonder about the need for panelists in the book ends.  We're going to be doing plenty of listening to panelists in Baku for five days already.  Canned presentations from/to people who've been talking to each other about all this stuff for years doesn't seem as value-adding to me as open group dialogue with a facilitator per session.  

By the way, one other request: would it be possible to know who all we are?  This could facilitate conversation and a group sensibility.  I tried logging into http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/bestbits with my caucus list ID but can't and so can't see who the 51 subscribers are…

Best

Bill



On Oct 2, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 25/09/12 13:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> For the agenda, there is also a majority in favour of retaining the planned format shown at http://igf-online.net/bestbits, but about two-thirds as many people would rather have discussion and drafting on each of the two days - in which case it would make sense to do ITU on the first day, since that day is the deadline for comments to the ITU's online comment system.[0]  There is not such strong support for any other changes being made.  Whilst that means that most people are content with the existing agenda, amongst those who are content with it, is there anyone who would strongly object to the change that the minority are suggesting?
> 
> Nobody has spoken up to say that they *would* oppose changing the agenda to move the ITU drafting and discussion together onto the same day, so I have revised the proposed agenda accordingly.  Please check out and comment on the proposed amended version, which is now live  (the good thing about an Etherpad is the we can easily roll     back to the old version if you don't like  it):
> 
> http://igf-online.net/bestbits
> 
> It means that there is less time for each drafting session, because they are no longer being held simultaneously.  It also means that Day 1 is heavier than Day 2 now.  What do you think?  Looking forward to your further comments, if any.
> 
> -- 
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> 
> Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/2b083dc6/attachment.htm>

From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com  Thu Oct 25 13:08:00 2012
From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:08:00 +0500
Subject: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <CALCecM9vmYYDZaDt0_aKhRGuwK=f7Q-Vz4q69zd-=5JvPbKZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org>
 <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch> <CALCecM9vmYYDZaDt0_aKhRGuwK=f7Q-Vz4q69zd-=5JvPbKZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPVtaunYX_thn7AC1y_RzjYCi99YDhST19+yt5K4aNStRbAOAA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I absolutely agree with what Ginger says.

Why remote participants are not suggested to register???

1. The IGF is being organized in a place, where many people are not able to
travel. (!)

In particular, those who live in Armenia, have Armenian origin, some
citizens of other countries (if necessary I will explain who in another
email), and all those who value highly their privacy  -  they all cannot
visit Azerbaijan.

I repeat, why remote participants are not counted on this event?

Again, I fully support Ginger's suggestion to enlarge the frames of the
event including remote participants.

Regards, Narine




On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jeremy and al,
> I see you have removed my name from the registration list, as I will not
> be present in Baku. I also note that remote participants are not suggested
> to register.
>
> If this list is to assist networking and exchange of ideas and knowledge,
> I think that those of us who are remote would appreciate being included in
> the list, so our 'invisible' presence and interest are perceived.
>
> While the list's first purpose surely was for planning meeting room
> purposes, now that it is being circulated for networking exchange, it
> becomes even more valuable to remote participants.  This is an important
> acknowledgement of our presence.
>
> I urge you to encourage remote participants to register, and to be treated
> as full participants, not just observers of this important meeting, as much
> as is possible. Remote participation is one of the 'Best Bits' of the IGF,
> and I know you support it fully. One of the points the IGF Remote
> Participation Working Group prioritizes is the registration of remote
> participants as equal members of a meeting.
>
> I will re-register, knowing my name will stay on the list :)
>
> With much appreciation for your energy and organization, and everyone's
> input,
>
> Ginger
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> Diplo Foundation
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> **
> **
>
>
>
> On 25 October 2012 06:53, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeremy
>>
>> Good to see this is moving along.  Is there any chance we could attach a
>> bit more info to the names for the benefit of those who don't know each
>> other?  Even just links to home pages would help...
>>
>>    Bill
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> A couple of people have requested the final list of registered
>> participants, so here it is. If you are not shown here and plan to be at
>> Best Bits in person, please let me know and register now at
>> http://bestbits.igf-online.net/.  Thanks!
>>
>> Andrew Puddephatt
>> Anja Kovacs
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Antonio Medina Gomez
>> Arthit Suriyawongkul
>> Avri Doria
>> Brett Solomon
>> Claudio Ruiz
>> Deborah Brown
>> Dixie Hawtin
>> Elonnai Hickok
>> Emma Llanso
>> Gene Kimmelman
>> Iarla Flynn
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Jochai Ben-Avie
>> Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
>> Joy Liddicoat
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Kevin Bankston
>> Matthew Shears
>> Michael Gurstein
>> Norbert Bollow
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Premila Kumar
>> Raquel Gatto
>> Rashmi Rangnath
>> Shita Laksmi
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> Theresa Züger
>> Valeria Betancourt
>> William Drake
>>  * *
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
www.safe.am
www.immasin.am
www.mediaeducation.am

Linkedin Profile: www.linkedin.com/in/narinekhachatryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121025/4a5d1bf3/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Oct 25 21:32:13 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:32:13 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <CAPVtaunYX_thn7AC1y_RzjYCi99YDhST19+yt5K4aNStRbAOAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org> <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch> <CALCecM9vmYYDZaDt0_aKhRGuwK=f7Q-Vz4q69zd-=5JvPbKZOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPVtaunYX_thn7AC1y_RzjYCi99YDhST19+yt5K4aNStRbAOAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C747853C-A233-4BEB-9CF3-CBC5DF1990C6@ciroap.org>

Since being cross-posted to the governance list, this thread has lost a bit of context.  So just to backtrack, Ginger was not talking about registration for the IGF, which I have nothing to do with.  Actually as you may know, I've been probably the longest campaigner for improvement in support for online participation in the IGF,[0] including the ability for remote participants to register online.[1]  So no argument there.

She was talking about Best Bits, the civil society meeting planned for 3-4 November, for which I've been the lead organiser.  In that case, remote participation was treated as integral from the start, and remote participants were invited at the outset to register themselves at the same time and in the same manner as everyone else.[2]

However since then, we have moved to a different website and we required everyone who was attending in person to re-register, for  purposes of arranging logistics on the ground.[3]  Meanwhile I haven't yet provided a new mechanism for remote participants to register (or re-register), but am working on that this weekend.  All the other facilities for remote participants are, however, already in place and have been for some time.[4]

Hope that clarifies.

[0] http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=1.0 dating way back to 2006
[1] See half-way down page 2 of http://igf.wgig.org/Contributions-Sept_2008/OCDC_Jeremy-Malcolm.pdf
[2] See under "Participants" at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/BestBits, and also http://bit.ly/SqnzeS
[3] http://bestbits.igf-online.net
[4] http://bestbits.igf-online.net/streaming/

On 26/10/2012, at 1:08 AM, Narine Khachatryan <ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I absolutely agree with what Ginger says. 
> 
> Why remote participants are not suggested to register???
> 
> 1. The IGF is being organized in a place, where many people are not able to travel. (!) 
> 
> In particular, those who live in Armenia, have Armenian origin, some citizens of other countries (if necessary I will explain who in another email), and all those who value highly their privacy  -  they all cannot visit Azerbaijan. 
> 
> I repeat, why remote participants are not counted on this event?
> 
> Again, I fully support Ginger's suggestion to enlarge the frames of the event including remote participants.
> 
> Regards, Narine    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeremy and al,
> I see you have removed my name from the registration list, as I will not be present in Baku. I also note that remote participants are not suggested to register.
> 
> If this list is to assist networking and exchange of ideas and knowledge, I think that those of us who are remote would appreciate being included in the list, so our 'invisible' presence and interest are perceived. 
> 
> While the list's first purpose surely was for planning meeting room purposes, now that it is being circulated for networking exchange, it becomes even more valuable to remote participants.  This is an important acknowledgement of our presence. 
> 
> I urge you to encourage remote participants to register, and to be treated as full participants, not just observers of this important meeting, as much as is possible. Remote participation is one of the 'Best Bits' of the IGF, and I know you support it fully. One of the points the IGF Remote Participation Working Group prioritizes is the registration of remote participants as equal members of a meeting.
> 
> I will re-register, knowing my name will stay on the list :)
> 
> With much appreciation for your energy and organization, and everyone's input,
> 
> Ginger
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> 
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> Diplo Foundation
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 25 October 2012 06:53, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi Jeremy
> 
> Good to see this is moving along.  Is there any chance we could attach a bit more info to the names for the benefit of those who don't know each other?  Even just links to home pages would help...
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 
>> A couple of people have requested the final list of registered participants, so here it is. If you are not shown here and plan to be at Best Bits in person, please let me know and register now at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/.  Thanks!
>> 
>> Andrew Puddephatt
>> Anja Kovacs
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Antonio Medina Gomez
>> Arthit Suriyawongkul
>> Avri Doria
>> Brett Solomon
>> Claudio Ruiz
>> Deborah Brown
>> Dixie Hawtin
>> Elonnai Hickok
>> Emma Llanso
>> Gene Kimmelman
>> Iarla Flynn
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Jochai Ben-Avie
>> Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
>> Joy Liddicoat
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Kevin Bankston
>> Matthew Shears
>> Michael Gurstein
>> Norbert Bollow
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Premila Kumar
>> Raquel Gatto
>> Rashmi Rangnath
>> Shita Laksmi
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> Theresa Züger
>> Valeria Betancourt
>> William Drake
>>   
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek 
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> www.safe.am
> www.immasin.am
> www.mediaeducation.am
> 
> Linkedin Profile: www.linkedin.com/in/narinekhachatryan
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/f484410c/attachment.htm>

From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Oct 26 07:21:27 2012
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:21:27 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <C747853C-A233-4BEB-9CF3-CBC5DF1990C6@ciroap.org>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org>
 <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch> <CALCecM9vmYYDZaDt0_aKhRGuwK=f7Q-Vz4q69zd-=5JvPbKZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPVtaunYX_thn7AC1y_RzjYCi99YDhST19+yt5K4aNStRbAOAA@mail.gmail.com> <C747853C-A233-4BEB-9CF3-CBC5DF1990C6@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CALCecM8nhGPLfGkMNH6Gt+_c4mK5DScPAKaxhPHC26U9ew6D0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks to everyone who supports remote participation, especially/including
Jeremy. One good thing about this incident is the discussion emphasizing
the need to allow remote participants to register as full attendees to
events, especially global policy discussion meetings.

Jeremy, I look forward to being able to register as a remote participant
soon, hopefully after the weekend. Thanks for your generosity with your
time, expertise  and energy.

Quick note: those of us who support the IGF process and remote
participation, and won't be in Baku, need to plan to be available for these
5 days, in a similar way to those who travel to Baku. I find it is helpful
to switch to the local (Baku) time when attending a meeting 'remotely'. To
be taken seriously, remote participants have to take attending the meeting
seriously too. Most RPers do... This is just a note for first timers. We
really have to take on the mindset of 'going to the IGF' to make the most
of RP.

Best wishes,
Ginger



Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
**
**



On 25 October 2012 20:32, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> Since being cross-posted to the governance list, this thread has lost a
> bit of context.  So just to backtrack, Ginger was not talking about
> registration for the IGF, which I have nothing to do with.  Actually as you
> may know, I've been probably the longest campaigner for improvement in
> support for online participation in the IGF,[0] including the ability for
> remote participants to register online.[1]  So no argument there.
>
> She was talking about Best Bits, the civil society meeting planned for 3-4
> November, for which I've been the lead organiser.  In that case, remote
> participation was treated as integral from the start, and remote
> participants were invited at the outset to register themselves at the same
> time and in the same manner as everyone else.[2]
>
> However since then, we have moved to a different website and we required
> everyone who was attending in person to re-register, for  purposes of
> arranging logistics on the ground.[3]  Meanwhile I haven't yet provided a
> new mechanism for remote participants to register (or re-register), but am
> working on that this weekend.  All the other facilities for remote
> participants are, however, already in place and have been for some time.[4]
>
> Hope that clarifies.
>
> [0] http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=1.0 dating way back to
> 2006
> [1] See half-way down page 2 of
> http://igf.wgig.org/Contributions-Sept_2008/OCDC_Jeremy-Malcolm.pdf
> [2] See under "Participants" at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/BestBits, and
> also http://bit.ly/SqnzeS
> [3] http://bestbits.igf-online.net
> [4] http://bestbits.igf-online.net/streaming/
>
> On 26/10/2012, at 1:08 AM, Narine Khachatryan <
> ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I absolutely agree with what Ginger says.
>
> Why remote participants are not suggested to register???
>
> 1. The IGF is being organized in a place, where many people are not able
> to travel. (!)
>
> In particular, those who live in Armenia, have Armenian origin, some
> citizens of other countries (if necessary I will explain who in another
> email), and all those who value highly their privacy  -  they all cannot
> visit Azerbaijan.
>
> I repeat, why remote participants are not counted on this event?
>
> Again, I fully support Ginger's suggestion to enlarge the frames of the
> event including remote participants.
>
> Regards, Narine
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeremy and al,
>> I see you have removed my name from the registration list, as I will not
>> be present in Baku. I also note that remote participants are not suggested
>> to register.
>>
>> If this list is to assist networking and exchange of ideas and knowledge,
>> I think that those of us who are remote would appreciate being included in
>> the list, so our 'invisible' presence and interest are perceived.
>>
>> While the list's first purpose surely was for planning meeting room
>> purposes, now that it is being circulated for networking exchange, it
>> becomes even more valuable to remote participants.  This is an important
>> acknowledgement of our presence.
>>
>> I urge you to encourage remote participants to register, and to be
>> treated as full participants, not just observers of this important meeting,
>> as much as is possible. Remote participation is one of the 'Best Bits' of
>> the IGF, and I know you support it fully. One of the points the IGF Remote
>> Participation Working Group prioritizes is the registration of remote
>> participants as equal members of a meeting.
>>
>> I will re-register, knowing my name will stay on the list :)
>>
>> With much appreciation for your energy and organization, and everyone's
>> input,
>>
>> Ginger
>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>>
>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>> Diplo Foundation
>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>> **
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 October 2012 06:53, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jeremy
>>>
>>> Good to see this is moving along.  Is there any chance we could attach a
>>> bit more info to the names for the benefit of those who don't know each
>>> other?  Even just links to home pages would help...
>>>
>>>    Bill
>>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> A couple of people have requested the final list of registered
>>> participants, so here it is. If you are not shown here and plan to be at
>>> Best Bits in person, please let me know and register now at
>>> http://bestbits.igf-online.net/.  Thanks!
>>>
>>> Andrew Puddephatt
>>> Anja Kovacs
>>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>> Antonio Medina Gomez
>>> Arthit Suriyawongkul
>>> Avri Doria
>>> Brett Solomon
>>> Claudio Ruiz
>>> Deborah Brown
>>> Dixie Hawtin
>>> Elonnai Hickok
>>> Emma Llanso
>>> Gene Kimmelman
>>> Iarla Flynn
>>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Jochai Ben-Avie
>>> Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
>>> Joy Liddicoat
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> Kevin Bankston
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Michael Gurstein
>>> Norbert Bollow
>>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>>> Pranesh Prakash
>>> Premila Kumar
>>> Raquel Gatto
>>> Rashmi Rangnath
>>> Shita Laksmi
>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>> Theresa Züger
>>> Valeria Betancourt
>>> William Drake
>>>  * *
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek
>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> www.safe.am
> www.immasin.am
> www.mediaeducation.am
>
> Linkedin Profile: www.linkedin.com/in/narinekhachatryan
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>    --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/efa5e60b/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Fri Oct 26 08:33:10 2012
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:33:10 +0000
Subject: Intro
In-Reply-To: <E1TRizm-0007hf-IW@igcaucus.org>
References: <E1TRizm-0007hf-IW@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <0000013a9d0fd1e3-d420cf98-50f4-4b12-8813-c0d951e8587e-000000@email.amazonses.com>

Dear all,

I just joined the list, I am sure I know a few of you but I look forward to the dialogue, and to joining the meetings in Baku.

In my professional life, for those who don't know me, I'm the Geneva Representative of CCIA, the only ICT sector trade association with a permanent presence in Geneva. We follow various things here, including various agencies' activities vis a vis IG.

-- 
Regards,
 
Nick Ashton-Hart
Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
email: nashton at consensus.pro
Skype: nashtonhart



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/fe0cdacd/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Oct 26 08:34:55 2012
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:04:55 +0530
Subject: ITU statement thread
In-Reply-To: <624F24AB-8AB0-463C-9D7F-60091CA78C03@uzh.ch>
References: <506ABFD0.2030509@ciroap.org> <507F17AB.5010708@cdt.org> <624F24AB-8AB0-463C-9D7F-60091CA78C03@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <508A836F.50201@itforchange.net>

Hi Bill/ All

Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy right now, but will 
put forward some ideas from my emerging, and yet tentative, views on the 
current draft of ITRs, which I will have to go through again in a 
properly through manner.

I see four sets of issues that are most important, and they are as follows:

/1. State control over Internet routing system/

This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR debate, 
even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is rightly feared 
that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries like China and Iran to 
develop strict state control over the routing of Internet traffic which 
today is globally ordered to a large extent. Earlier inputs of these 
countries into the ITR draft were rather more explicit in this regard. 
Even though rendered relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there is 
significant text still there that can be used for a tightly controlled 
Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can lead to 
nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.

In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30 which 
deals with this issue. Options range from 'states right to know which 
routes are used', to 'states determining which routes are used', to 
'imposing any routing regulation in this regard'. My proposal is to go 
with one of the listed options which is to suppress section 30 
altogether; so, no language on this issue at all.

/2. ITU and CIRs management/

One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to, and vide 
the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed by the 
distributed CIR management system as it exists at present.  In the 
current draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this regard of ITU's 
feared encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus system . The options 
in the current draft regarding this section range from 'naming, 
numbering, addressing and identification resources will not be mis-used' 
and 'assigned resources would only be used for the agreed purposes' to 
'all ITU recommendations will apply to naming, numbering, addressing and 
identification resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation 
states, if they elect to, can control these resources within their 
territories for the sake of international communication'.

If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to names and 
numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping encroachment on 
ICANN's remit. One option in the current draft lists a set of specific 
ITU recommendations that will apply (these need to be studied 
individually which I havent). Other options are more open ended, which 
means future ITU recommendations may also apply, which, may mean that 
ITU can formally enter into doing and/or supervising ICANN's work. This 
becomes more problematic when seen along with draft options that make 
ITRs obligatory and not just a set of general principles. We should 
speak up against all such efforts to take over, or even substantially 
affect, the current distributed system of CIRs management.

/3. Definitional issues in the ITRs, telecom or Internet/

Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The issue is 
really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus under ITRs and 
ITU has its problems and a completely new kind of global regulatory 
system may then be built over it, which would hurt the way Internet has 
developed and needs to develop. However, it is also difficult to just 
argue that, when we are in times we are in, Internet traffic will be 
excluded from telecom definition, because that would beg the question - 
what then remains of telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based 
convergence. Is then ITU to close down as traditional telephony 
disappears. Perhaps more importantly, correspondingly, does this new 
definitional approach also mean that national level telecom regulatory 
systems like FCC and TRAI wind up sooner or later.

I dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts seeking 
complete deregulation of the entire communications systems that, for 
instance, are at present being made in the US, which employ definitional 
logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying Internet not as a 
telecommunication but as an information service and thus not subject to 
common carriage or net neutrality provisions, and similarly rescuing 
VoIP services from universal service obligations.) At the same time, it 
is necessary to resist providing constitutional basis to the ITU which 
can be used to for control of content and application layers. This is 
the dilemma. What would the implications of putting Internet under 
telecommunications in the definitional and other sections? What does 
adding 'processing' signals to just sending, transporting and receiving  
signals does to what happens in the future vis a vis ITU's role? (These 
are all existing optional language in the current draft.)

This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time on. My 
tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the transport / 
infrastructural layer is included in the definition of telecommunication 
(which also is closest to reality) and thus in ITR's remit. At the same 
time content and application layers are explicitly excluded. 
Contributing the right language in this respect may be one of the most 
important things that we can do. But as I said, this requires a lot of 
thinking and discussion among us.

In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of 'security' 
would become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may be an issue we 
may have to separately treat in our submission, becuase there is also a 
lot of tricky language in the current draft around this issue.

/4. Net neutrality or an open Internet

/We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a 'sender pays' 
arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it. Everywhere it is 
recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net neutrality 
cannot survive with regulatory intervention, or at least some kind of 
normative soft pressure from regulatory quarters. So if there is an 
issue called 'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then there 
is perhaps some role for a global regulatory system - if not of 
enforceable rules, at least for providing normative frameworks and 
general principles. And net neutrality concerns the transport layer, net 
neutrality concerns can be accommodated even while we do the above 
mentioned 'definitional separations' about what part of the Internet is 
telecom and which not.

  While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for reasons 
one can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US is the sender 
pays principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some way to 
promote a normative framework for net neutrality or an open Internet - 
or even more specific things like open peering and the such.

I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS term which 
can become the normative indication for violation of net neutrality and 
it should be opposed.

/5. Some sundry issues

/Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may require 
separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One, whether 
ITRs should stay as general principles or they should become mandatory. 
These is alternative language in the current draft on these option. I 
think we should seek that ITRs stay as general principles. Second, if 
the principal parties that are subject to ITRs should remain 
'administrations' or be changed to 'member states and operating 
agencies'. I think the telecom environment has become complex and 
diverse enough to require the more flexible term 'operating agencies' to 
be included.

Thanks, and look forward to listen to other people's views on this.

parminder

On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.
>
> A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on possible ways to 
> boot up this process.  One option considered was to have some of the 
> folks that most closely follow the issues around the two statements 
> get started with some drafting of bits for collective consideration, 
> but we ultimately decided this was a bad idea.  With a diverse group, 
> some of whom may not have worked together before, it seemed better to 
> move in a completely inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so 
> that anyone who wants to follow or weigh in can do so at the most 
> formative stages.  Setting up these lists seemed a good way to get 
> that started, and we might want to try pushing as far as we can before 
> meeting so the F2F bit is less stressed.  So let's see what we can do?
>
> I guess the first and foundational question is what style of letter 
> with what principal focus.  I've stated my views previously,
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to 
>>> the ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. 
>>> That is much more doable. 
>>
>> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement. 
>>  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the 
>> process, e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, 
>> watershed, historic (quoting the press office) release of a document 
>> that had already been leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the 
>> zeitgeist in tower, this was news.  And more generally, those 
>> statements made senior staff who'd previously declared they'd be 
>> unaffected by any muttering among the riff raff launch an 
>> unprecedented counter-offensive perception management gambit, 
>> complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling critics 
>> that their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
>>
>> What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more 
>> focused on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the 
>> conference chair declare some sessions open to the public.  One 
>> imagines there will be push back from the usual suspects; it'd be 
>> good to briefly make the case.  Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on 
>> the concrete proposals that could be problematic for the Internet and 
>> offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally, these should acknowledge 
>> that in some cases governments may have real legitimate concerns, but 
>> point out the downsides of overreach and that there are other, more 
>> effective ways to deal with them than via a multilateral treaty on 
>> telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and content.  If we do 
>> that, at least some delegations might have a look before tossing the 
>> responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and that 
>> would establish another reference point for delegates carrying 
>> similar messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR 
>> main session in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>
>
> So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up the main 
> topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and each 
> prepare a tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point 
> conclusions, that sort of a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns 
> behind the proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is 
> overreaching and likely to have unforeseen negative consequences, c) 
> indicates a better way to go about addressing the problem, and d) 
> offers preferred language.  Maybe not in that order, but you see what 
> I mean.  Aggregation of and editing for consistent style a bunch of 
> such mini-statements would be fairly easy to do in Baku, then we'd 
> just need a chapeau and closing, and voila, we'd have the sort of 
> input document delegates are used to reading, and perhaps one that 
> wouldn't head straight to the circular file.
>
> Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make references to 
> civil society thinks this or feels that.  Many delegates read that as 
> "fifth column for Western domination thinks this or feels that."  They 
> know who we are, basically.  Let's not stand around calling attention 
> to it, and just stick to the issues at hand.
>
> At least, that's what I'd do.
>
> Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start in on?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in another 
>> thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to some of 
>> the existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many of 
>> you are familiar with already!), including:
>>
>> https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
>> https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet
>> http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/
>>
>> In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns, CDT 
>> has identified several categories of proposals that both raise human 
>> rights concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at 
>> WCIT.  I've included some discussion and text of proposals below, and 
>> would be very curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific 
>> issues raise concerns.
>>
>> Best,
>> Emma
>>
>> 1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a new 
>> provision that would give states the right to know where traffic has 
>> been routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for 
>> security and fraud purposes.  If this provision is applied to 
>> regulate the route of Internet traffic, it would require technical 
>> changes to the Internet that would give governments additional tools 
>> to block traffic to and from certain websites or countries. 
>>  Regulations on routing could also enable greater tracking of users 
>> by their IP addresses. This provision is put forward in the name of 
>> security and fraud, but their necessity, proportionality, and impact 
>> on the right to privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully 
>> assessed.
>>
>> Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have proposed 
>> that "A Member State shall have the right to know through where its 
>> traffic has been routed, and should have the right to impose any 
>> routing regulations in this regard, for purposes of security and 
>> countering fraud." A similar proposal has been made by the Regional 
>> Commonwealth group of states (RCC) and is also supported by Russia.
>>
>> 2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of 
>> telecommunications - Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
>> states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member States 
>> to ensure access and use of international telecommunications 
>> services, but allows an exception for when telecommunications is used 
>> "for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or 
>> undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity 
>> and public safety of other States, or to divulge information of a 
>> sensitive nature."  The Internet has become an essential tool for the 
>> exercise of a range of human rights.  This proposal is inconsistent 
>> with human rights standards that articulate when governments may 
>> permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 
>> of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR.  This proposal could be used 
>> to legitimize
>> restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of 
>> expression, association, and assembly.
>>
>> 3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European 
>> Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
>> Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how networks 
>> on the Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a 
>> "sending party pays" system, where content providers would have to 
>> pay fees to reach the user who wants to access that content.  Some 
>> civil society organizations believe this system would result in 
>> increased costs of Internet access for users, especially in less 
>> developed countries, since the fees companies pay would be then 
>> passed on to users.  The ETNO proposal also encourages ISPs to make 
>> special deals with content companies to prioritize their content, 
>> which undermines net neutrality online.  Taken together, the effect 
>> of the ETNO  proposal would be to increase the cost of Internet 
>> access and limit equal access to information online.  Again, the full 
>> impact of the ETNO proposal on Internet access and the ability of 
>> individuals to seek and receive information online must be fully 
>> assessed.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Emma J. Llansó
>> Policy Counsel
>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>> Washington, DC 20006
>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two 
>>> output documents, which a core of interested participants could join 
>>> to come up with some zero-draft text as a starting point for 
>>> discussions in Baku.
>>>
>>> As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested 
>>> we bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am 
>>> starting two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm 
>>> beginning with the ITU statement.
>>>
>>> I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not 
>>> compared to some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual 
>>> text.  But in general terms, it is hoped that the statement would by 
>>> a strong and unified civil society position to which most of us 
>>> subscribe, not only pushing back against the ITU's mission creep and 
>>> pointing out its deficits with respect to the WSIS process criteria 
>>> (openness, multi-stakeholderism, etc), but being quite specific 
>>> about the issues on the table for WCIT.  What issues do we already 
>>> know are the key ones for our members or constituents?
>>>
>>> So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more 
>>> progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at 
>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Policy Officer
>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala 
>>> Lumpur, Malaysia
>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* 
>>> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>>>
>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
>>> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice 
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
>>> print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/35454cc0/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Oct 26 08:57:51 2012
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:27:51 +0530
Subject: Final registration list
In-Reply-To: <58B5C967-B349-4EE4-8A1F-D9E58FC8DFDB@ciroap.org>
References: <C3C3112D-49E8-4E58-AF82-64625BD82431@ciroap.org> <C01E869D-CE8D-4B59-925D-30691B20A7CE@uzh.ch> <EEAE5930-AADD-4DB4-BA49-E07CA2DFCC46@acm.org> <58B5C967-B349-4EE4-8A1F-D9E58FC8DFDB@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <508A88CF.8090508@cis-india.org>

Jeremy Malcolm [2012-10-25 21:00]:
> On 25/10/2012, at 9:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Which tech are we using fro remote participation?
>
>
> ustream.tv, which is embedded into the website at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/streaming/

Apart from UStream live-stream, people can also participate using IRC. 
Those who don't have IRC clients (like Pidgin or Adium) can use the web 
interface provided on igf-online.net for chat.

There is a #igf room on Freenode, and people can use the #igf-bestbits 
specifically for this conference.

http://igf-online.net/chat.php

Cheers,
Pranesh

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 259 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/bdddfb8d/attachment.sig>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Fri Oct 26 09:08:37 2012
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:08:37 -0400
Subject: ITU statement thread
In-Reply-To: <508A836F.50201@itforchange.net>
References: <506ABFD0.2030509@ciroap.org>
	<507F17AB.5010708@cdt.org>
	<624F24AB-8AB0-463C-9D7F-60091CA78C03@uzh.ch>
	<508A836F.50201@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA-Rq3pBSi2ygjc9JVG9g5fbubtkr9EMK8k_kx75Jz5yCg@mail.gmail.com>

I totally agree with Parminder's observations on points 1-4 (I need think
more about 5., and how "operating agencies" will be interpreted); I'm
hoping our conversations can identify key points of civil society agreement
and not get caught up in all the details of the ITR proposals.  I'd just
like to highlight the importance of focusing on the transport layer,
preserving the appropriate definition of "telecommunications" to ensure
that transport bottlenecks can and should be regulated to preserve network
neutrality/prevent undue discrimination and should be platforms for access
to affordable essential communications services.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Hi Bill/ All
>
> Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy right now, but will
> put forward some ideas from my emerging, and yet tentative, views on the
> current draft of ITRs, which I will have to go through again in a properly
> through manner.
>
> I see four sets of issues that are most important, and they are as follows:
>
> *1. State control over Internet routing system*
>
> This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR debate,
> even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is rightly feared
> that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries like China and Iran to
> develop strict state control over the routing of Internet traffic which
> today is globally ordered to a large extent. Earlier inputs of these
> countries into the ITR draft were rather more explicit in this regard. Even
> though rendered relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there is
> significant text still there that can be used for a tightly controlled
> Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can lead to
> nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.
>
> In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30 which deals
> with this issue. Options range from 'states right to know which routes are
> used', to 'states determining which routes are used', to 'imposing any
> routing regulation in this regard'. My proposal is to go with one of the
> listed options which is to suppress section 30 altogether; so, no language
> on this issue at all.
>
> *2. ITU and CIRs management*
>
> One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to, and vide
> the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed by the
> distributed CIR management system as it exists at present.  In the current
> draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this regard of ITU's feared
> encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus system . The options in the
> current draft regarding this section range from 'naming, numbering,
> addressing and identification resources will not be mis-used' and 'assigned
> resources would only be used for the agreed purposes' to 'all ITU
> recommendations will apply to naming, numbering, addressing and
> identification resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation states,
> if they elect to, can control these resources within their territories for
> the sake of international communication'.
>
> If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to names and
> numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping encroachment on ICANN's
> remit. One option in the current draft lists a set of specific ITU
> recommendations that will apply (these need to be studied individually
> which I havent). Other options are more open ended, which means future ITU
> recommendations may also apply, which, may mean that ITU can formally enter
> into doing and/or supervising ICANN's work. This becomes more problematic
> when seen along with draft options that make ITRs obligatory and not just
> a set of general principles. We should speak up against all such efforts to
> take over, or even substantially affect, the current distributed system of
> CIRs management.
>
> *3. Definitional issues in the ITRs, telecom or Internet*
>
> Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The issue is
> really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus under ITRs and ITU
> has its problems and a completely new kind of global regulatory system may
> then be built over it, which would hurt the way Internet has developed and
> needs to develop. However, it is also difficult to just argue that, when we
> are in times we are in, Internet traffic will be excluded from telecom
> definition, because that would beg the question - what then remains of
> telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based convergence. Is then ITU
> to close down as traditional telephony disappears. Perhaps more
> importantly, correspondingly, does this new definitional approach also mean
> that national level telecom regulatory systems like FCC and TRAI wind up
> sooner or later.
>
> I dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts seeking
> complete deregulation of the entire communications systems that, for
> instance,  are at present being made in the US, which employ definitional
> logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying Internet not as a
> telecommunication but as an information service and thus not subject to
> common carriage or net neutrality provisions, and similarly rescuing VoIP
> services from universal service obligations.) At the same time, it is
> necessary to resist providing constitutional basis to the ITU which can be
> used to for control of content and application layers. This is the dilemma.
> What would the implications of putting Internet under telecommunications in
> the definitional and other sections? What does adding 'processing' signals
> to just sending, transporting and receiving  signals does to what happens
> in the future vis a vis ITU's role? (These are all existing optional
> language in the current draft.)
>
> This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time on. My
> tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the transport /
> infrastructural layer is included in the definition of telecommunication
> (which also is closest to reality) and thus in ITR's remit. At the same
> time content and application layers are explicitly excluded. Contributing
> the right language in this respect may be one of the most important things
> that we can do. But as I said, this requires a lot of thinking and
> discussion among us.
>
> In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of 'security' would
> become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may be an issue we may have to
> separately treat in our submission, becuase there is also a lot of tricky
> language in the current draft around this issue.
>
> *4. Net neutrality or an open Internet
>
> *We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a 'sender pays'
> arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it. Everywhere it is
> recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net neutrality cannot
> survive with regulatory intervention, or at least some kind of normative
> soft pressure from regulatory quarters. So if there is an issue called
> 'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then there is perhaps some
> role for a global regulatory system - if not of enforceable rules, at least
> for providing normative frameworks and general principles. And net
> neutrality concerns the transport layer, net neutrality concerns can be
> accommodated even while we do the above mentioned 'definitional
> separations' about what part of the Internet is telecom and which not.
>
>  While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for reasons one
> can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US is the sender pays
> principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some way to promote a
> normative framework for net neutrality or an open Internet - or even more
> specific things like open peering and the such.
>
> I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS term which can
> become the normative indication for violation of net neutrality and it
> should be opposed.
>
> *5. Some sundry issues
>
> *Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may require
> separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One, whether ITRs
> should stay as general principles or they should become mandatory. These is
> alternative language in the current draft on these option. I think we
> should seek that ITRs stay as general principles. Second, if the
> principal parties that are subject to ITRs should remain 'administrations'
> or be changed to 'member states and operating agencies'. I think the
> telecom environment has become complex and diverse enough to require the
> more flexible term 'operating agencies' to be included.
>
> Thanks, and look forward to listen to other people's views on this.
>
> parminder
>
>  On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
>  Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.
>
>  A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on possible ways to
> boot up this process.  One option considered was to have some of the folks
> that most closely follow the issues around the two statements get started
> with some drafting of bits for collective consideration, but we ultimately
> decided this was a bad idea.  With a diverse group, some of whom may not
> have worked together before, it seemed better to move in a completely
> inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so that anyone who wants to
> follow or weigh in can do so at the most formative stages.  Setting up
> these lists seemed a good way to get that started, and we might want to try
> pushing as far as we can before meeting so the F2F bit is less stressed.
>  So let's see what we can do?
>
>  I guess the first and foundational question is what style of letter with
> what principal focus.  I've stated my views previously,
>
>
>  On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>
> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to the
> ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is much
> more doable.
>
>
> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement.
>  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the process,
> e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, watershed, historic
> (quoting the press office) release of a document that had already been
> leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was
> news.  And more generally, those statements made senior staff who'd
> previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering among the riff
> raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive perception management
> gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling
> critics that their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
>
>  What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more focused
> on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the conference chair
> declare some sessions open to the public.  One imagines there will be push
> back from the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case.
>  Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that could be
> problematic for the Internet and offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally,
> these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may have real
> legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of overreach and that
> there are other, more effective ways to deal with them than via a
> multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and
> content.  If we do that, at least some delegations might have a look before
> tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and
> that would establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar
> messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main session
> in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>
>
>
>  So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up the main
> topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and each prepare a
> tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point conclusions,
> that sort of a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the
> proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is overreaching and likely to
> have unforeseen negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go
> about addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred language.  Maybe not
> in that order, but you see what I mean.  Aggregation of and editing for
> consistent style a bunch of such mini-statements would be fairly easy to do
> in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau and closing, and voila, we'd have
> the sort of input document delegates are used to reading, and perhaps one
> that wouldn't head straight to the circular file.
>
>  Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make references to
> civil society thinks this or feels that.  Many delegates read that as
> "fifth column for Western domination thinks this or feels that."  They know
> who we are, basically.  Let's not stand around calling attention to it, and
> just stick to the issues at hand.
>
>  At least, that's what I'd do.
>
>  Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start in on?
>
>  Best,
>
>  Bill
>
>
>
>
>  On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
> Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in another
> thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to some of the
> existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many of you are
> familiar with already!), including:
>
> https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
> https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet
> http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/
>
> In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns, CDT has
> identified several categories of proposals that both raise human rights
> concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at WCIT.  I've
> included some discussion and text of proposals below, and would be very
> curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific issues raise concerns.
>
> Best,
> Emma
>
> 1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a new
> provision that would give states the right to know where traffic has been
> routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for security and fraud
> purposes.  If this provision is applied to regulate the route of Internet
> traffic, it would require technical changes to the Internet that would give
> governments additional tools to block traffic to and from certain websites
> or countries.  Regulations on routing could also enable greater tracking of
> users by their IP addresses. This provision is put forward in the name of
> security and fraud, but their necessity, proportionality, and impact on the
> right to privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully assessed.
>
> Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have proposed that "A
> Member State shall have the right to know through where its traffic has
> been routed, and should have the right to impose any routing regulations in
> this regard, for purposes of security and countering fraud." A similar
> proposal has been made by the Regional Commonwealth group of states (RCC)
> and is also supported by Russia.
>
> 2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of telecommunications -
> Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
> states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member States to
> ensure access and use of international telecommunications services, but
> allows an exception for when telecommunications is used "for the purpose of
> interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty,
> national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other States,
> or to divulge information of a sensitive nature."  The Internet has become
> an essential tool for the exercise of a range of human rights.  This
> proposal is inconsistent with human rights standards that articulate when
> governments may permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression under
> Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR.  This proposal could be
> used to legitimize
> restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of expression,
> association, and assembly.
>
> 3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European Telecommunications
> Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
> Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how networks on the
> Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a "sending party
> pays" system, where content providers would have to pay fees to reach the
> user who wants to access that content.  Some civil society organizations
> believe this system would result in increased costs of Internet access for
> users, especially in less developed countries, since the fees companies pay
> would be then passed on to users.  The ETNO proposal also encourages ISPs
> to make special deals with content companies to prioritize their content,
> which undermines net neutrality online.  Taken together, the effect of the
> ETNO  proposal would be to increase the cost of Internet access and limit
> equal access to information online.  Again, the full impact of the ETNO
> proposal on Internet access and the ability of individuals to seek and
> receive information online must be fully assessed.
>
>
> --
> Emma J. Llansó
> Policy Counsel
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>
>
> On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two output
> documents, which a core of interested participants could join to come up
> with some zero-draft text as a starting point for discussions in Baku.
>
> As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested we
> bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am starting
> two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm beginning with the
> ITU statement.
>
> I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not compared to
> some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text.  But in general
> terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and unified civil
> society position to which most of us subscribe, not only pushing back
> against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its deficits with respect
> to the WSIS process criteria (openness, multi-stakeholderism, etc), but
> being quite specific about the issues on the table for WCIT.  What issues
> do we already know are the key ones for our members or constituents?
>
> So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more
> progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/b20f2ef3/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Oct 26 10:17:19 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:17:19 +0800
Subject: Participants list on the Best Bits website
Message-ID: <7D159C68-6AF6-4D2B-BA53-2F439A6243D8@ciroap.org>

Everyone who is attending, and who didn't already have an account on the Best Bits website, will have just received an automatic email with a username and password for the site.  DON'T PANIC!  You don't need to do anything new.  This email is just for your information, and is the same email that new people registering will receive from now on.

It was necessary to create accounts for everyone on the website in order to display a dynamic list of participants, including those who register to participate remotely.  (It's a public holiday in Malaysia today so I was able to drop everything and get this done.)

You can view the list at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/participants/ - if you log in, you will see email addresses; if you don't, you won't.  You can edit your own data to determine what will appear here - please follow the instructions in the individual email that you received.

So, in summary:

1. Don't panic, you don't need to do anything new to confirm that you are participating.
2. If you want to, please log in and edit the data that other participants will see about you.

Thanks.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/7f9e4a63/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Oct 26 10:18:41 2012
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:48:41 +0530
Subject: ITU statement thread
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA-Rq3pBSi2ygjc9JVG9g5fbubtkr9EMK8k_kx75Jz5yCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <506ABFD0.2030509@ciroap.org> <507F17AB.5010708@cdt.org> <624F24AB-8AB0-463C-9D7F-60091CA78C03@uzh.ch> <508A836F.50201@itforchange.net> <CA+4KnA-Rq3pBSi2ygjc9JVG9g5fbubtkr9EMK8k_kx75Jz5yCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <508A9BC1.7000704@cis-india.org>

Dear Parminder and Gene,
Excellent points. Just one word of caution over points 3-5:  While 3-5 are 
a contentious even substantively, I think it's worth pointing out that the 
private sector do not have a seat at the negotiating table and have to go 
through states.  While the change in the telecom landscape since 1988 
(especially privatization) might necessitate thinking along these lines, it 
is also important to think about how ideas of multistakeholderism and 
democratization of decision-making fit in here.

Regards,
Pranesh

Gene Kimmelman [2012-10-26 18:38]:
> I totally agree with Parminder's observations on points 1-4 (I need think
> more about 5., and how "operating agencies" will be interpreted); I'm
> hoping our conversations can identify key points of civil society agreement
> and not get caught up in all the details of the ITR proposals.  I'd just
> like to highlight the importance of focusing on the transport layer,
> preserving the appropriate definition of "telecommunications" to ensure
> that transport bottlenecks can and should be regulated to preserve network
> neutrality/prevent undue discrimination and should be platforms for access
> to affordable essential communications services.
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>   Hi Bill/ All
>>
>> Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy right now, but will
>> put forward some ideas from my emerging, and yet tentative, views on the
>> current draft of ITRs, which I will have to go through again in a properly
>> through manner.
>>
>> I see four sets of issues that are most important, and they are as follows:
>>
>> *1. State control over Internet routing system*
>>
>> This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR debate,
>> even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is rightly feared
>> that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries like China and Iran to
>> develop strict state control over the routing of Internet traffic which
>> today is globally ordered to a large extent. Earlier inputs of these
>> countries into the ITR draft were rather more explicit in this regard. Even
>> though rendered relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there is
>> significant text still there that can be used for a tightly controlled
>> Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can lead to
>> nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.
>>
>> In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30 which deals
>> with this issue. Options range from 'states right to know which routes are
>> used', to 'states determining which routes are used', to 'imposing any
>> routing regulation in this regard'. My proposal is to go with one of the
>> listed options which is to suppress section 30 altogether; so, no language
>> on this issue at all.
>>
>> *2. ITU and CIRs management*
>>
>> One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to, and vide
>> the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed by the
>> distributed CIR management system as it exists at present.  In the current
>> draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this regard of ITU's feared
>> encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus system . The options in the
>> current draft regarding this section range from 'naming, numbering,
>> addressing and identification resources will not be mis-used' and 'assigned
>> resources would only be used for the agreed purposes' to 'all ITU
>> recommendations will apply to naming, numbering, addressing and
>> identification resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation states,
>> if they elect to, can control these resources within their territories for
>> the sake of international communication'.
>>
>> If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to names and
>> numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping encroachment on ICANN's
>> remit. One option in the current draft lists a set of specific ITU
>> recommendations that will apply (these need to be studied individually
>> which I havent). Other options are more open ended, which means future ITU
>> recommendations may also apply, which, may mean that ITU can formally enter
>> into doing and/or supervising ICANN's work. This becomes more problematic
>> when seen along with draft options that make ITRs obligatory and not just
>> a set of general principles. We should speak up against all such efforts to
>> take over, or even substantially affect, the current distributed system of
>> CIRs management.
>>
>> *3. Definitional issues in the ITRs, telecom or Internet*
>>
>> Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The issue is
>> really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus under ITRs and ITU
>> has its problems and a completely new kind of global regulatory system may
>> then be built over it, which would hurt the way Internet has developed and
>> needs to develop. However, it is also difficult to just argue that, when we
>> are in times we are in, Internet traffic will be excluded from telecom
>> definition, because that would beg the question - what then remains of
>> telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based convergence. Is then ITU
>> to close down as traditional telephony disappears. Perhaps more
>> importantly, correspondingly, does this new definitional approach also mean
>> that national level telecom regulatory systems like FCC and TRAI wind up
>> sooner or later.
>>
>> I dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts seeking
>> complete deregulation of the entire communications systems that, for
>> instance,  are at present being made in the US, which employ definitional
>> logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying Internet not as a
>> telecommunication but as an information service and thus not subject to
>> common carriage or net neutrality provisions, and similarly rescuing VoIP
>> services from universal service obligations.) At the same time, it is
>> necessary to resist providing constitutional basis to the ITU which can be
>> used to for control of content and application layers. This is the dilemma.
>> What would the implications of putting Internet under telecommunications in
>> the definitional and other sections? What does adding 'processing' signals
>> to just sending, transporting and receiving  signals does to what happens
>> in the future vis a vis ITU's role? (These are all existing optional
>> language in the current draft.)
>>
>> This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time on. My
>> tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the transport /
>> infrastructural layer is included in the definition of telecommunication
>> (which also is closest to reality) and thus in ITR's remit. At the same
>> time content and application layers are explicitly excluded. Contributing
>> the right language in this respect may be one of the most important things
>> that we can do. But as I said, this requires a lot of thinking and
>> discussion among us.
>>
>> In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of 'security' would
>> become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may be an issue we may have to
>> separately treat in our submission, becuase there is also a lot of tricky
>> language in the current draft around this issue.
>>
>> *4. Net neutrality or an open Internet
>>
>> *We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a 'sender pays'
>> arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it. Everywhere it is
>> recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net neutrality cannot
>> survive with regulatory intervention, or at least some kind of normative
>> soft pressure from regulatory quarters. So if there is an issue called
>> 'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then there is perhaps some
>> role for a global regulatory system - if not of enforceable rules, at least
>> for providing normative frameworks and general principles. And net
>> neutrality concerns the transport layer, net neutrality concerns can be
>> accommodated even while we do the above mentioned 'definitional
>> separations' about what part of the Internet is telecom and which not.
>>
>>   While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for reasons one
>> can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US is the sender pays
>> principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some way to promote a
>> normative framework for net neutrality or an open Internet - or even more
>> specific things like open peering and the such.
>>
>> I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS term which can
>> become the normative indication for violation of net neutrality and it
>> should be opposed.
>>
>> *5. Some sundry issues
>>
>> *Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may require
>> separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One, whether ITRs
>> should stay as general principles or they should become mandatory. These is
>> alternative language in the current draft on these option. I think we
>> should seek that ITRs stay as general principles. Second, if the
>> principal parties that are subject to ITRs should remain 'administrations'
>> or be changed to 'member states and operating agencies'. I think the
>> telecom environment has become complex and diverse enough to require the
>> more flexible term 'operating agencies' to be included.
>>
>> Thanks, and look forward to listen to other people's views on this.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>   On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>>   Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.
>>
>>   A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on possible ways to
>> boot up this process.  One option considered was to have some of the folks
>> that most closely follow the issues around the two statements get started
>> with some drafting of bits for collective consideration, but we ultimately
>> decided this was a bad idea.  With a diverse group, some of whom may not
>> have worked together before, it seemed better to move in a completely
>> inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so that anyone who wants to
>> follow or weigh in can do so at the most formative stages.  Setting up
>> these lists seemed a good way to get that started, and we might want to try
>> pushing as far as we can before meeting so the F2F bit is less stressed.
>>   So let's see what we can do?
>>
>>   I guess the first and foundational question is what style of letter with
>> what principal focus.  I've stated my views previously,
>>
>>
>>   On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to the
>> ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is much
>> more doable.
>>
>>
>> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement.
>>   Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the process,
>> e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, watershed, historic
>> (quoting the press office) release of a document that had already been
>> leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was
>> news.  And more generally, those statements made senior staff who'd
>> previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering among the riff
>> raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive perception management
>> gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling
>> critics that their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
>>
>>   What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more focused
>> on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the conference chair
>> declare some sessions open to the public.  One imagines there will be push
>> back from the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case.
>>   Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that could be
>> problematic for the Internet and offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally,
>> these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may have real
>> legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of overreach and that
>> there are other, more effective ways to deal with them than via a
>> multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and
>> content.  If we do that, at least some delegations might have a look before
>> tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and
>> that would establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar
>> messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main session
>> in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>   So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up the main
>> topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and each prepare a
>> tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point conclusions,
>> that sort of a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the
>> proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is overreaching and likely to
>> have unforeseen negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go
>> about addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred language.  Maybe not
>> in that order, but you see what I mean.  Aggregation of and editing for
>> consistent style a bunch of such mini-statements would be fairly easy to do
>> in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau and closing, and voila, we'd have
>> the sort of input document delegates are used to reading, and perhaps one
>> that wouldn't head straight to the circular file.
>>
>>   Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make references to
>> civil society thinks this or feels that.  Many delegates read that as
>> "fifth column for Western domination thinks this or feels that."  They know
>> who we are, basically.  Let's not stand around calling attention to it, and
>> just stick to the issues at hand.
>>
>>   At least, that's what I'd do.
>>
>>   Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start in on?
>>
>>   Best,
>>
>>   Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>
>>   Hi all,
>>
>> Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in another
>> thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to some of the
>> existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many of you are
>> familiar with already!), including:
>>
>> https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
>> https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet
>> http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/
>>
>> In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns, CDT has
>> identified several categories of proposals that both raise human rights
>> concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at WCIT.  I've
>> included some discussion and text of proposals below, and would be very
>> curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific issues raise concerns.
>>
>> Best,
>> Emma
>>
>> 1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a new
>> provision that would give states the right to know where traffic has been
>> routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for security and fraud
>> purposes.  If this provision is applied to regulate the route of Internet
>> traffic, it would require technical changes to the Internet that would give
>> governments additional tools to block traffic to and from certain websites
>> or countries.  Regulations on routing could also enable greater tracking of
>> users by their IP addresses. This provision is put forward in the name of
>> security and fraud, but their necessity, proportionality, and impact on the
>> right to privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully assessed.
>>
>> Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have proposed that "A
>> Member State shall have the right to know through where its traffic has
>> been routed, and should have the right to impose any routing regulations in
>> this regard, for purposes of security and countering fraud." A similar
>> proposal has been made by the Regional Commonwealth group of states (RCC)
>> and is also supported by Russia.
>>
>> 2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of telecommunications -
>> Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
>> states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member States to
>> ensure access and use of international telecommunications services, but
>> allows an exception for when telecommunications is used "for the purpose of
>> interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty,
>> national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other States,
>> or to divulge information of a sensitive nature."  The Internet has become
>> an essential tool for the exercise of a range of human rights.  This
>> proposal is inconsistent with human rights standards that articulate when
>> governments may permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression under
>> Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR.  This proposal could be
>> used to legitimize
>> restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of expression,
>> association, and assembly.
>>
>> 3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European Telecommunications
>> Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
>> Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how networks on the
>> Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a "sending party
>> pays" system, where content providers would have to pay fees to reach the
>> user who wants to access that content.  Some civil society organizations
>> believe this system would result in increased costs of Internet access for
>> users, especially in less developed countries, since the fees companies pay
>> would be then passed on to users.  The ETNO proposal also encourages ISPs
>> to make special deals with content companies to prioritize their content,
>> which undermines net neutrality online.  Taken together, the effect of the
>> ETNO  proposal would be to increase the cost of Internet access and limit
>> equal access to information online.  Again, the full impact of the ETNO
>> proposal on Internet access and the ability of individuals to seek and
>> receive information online must be fully assessed.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Emma J. Llansó
>> Policy Counsel
>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>> Washington, DC 20006
>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two output
>> documents, which a core of interested participants could join to come up
>> with some zero-draft text as a starting point for discussions in Baku.
>>
>> As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested we
>> bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am starting
>> two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm beginning with the
>> ITU statement.
>>
>> I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not compared to
>> some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text.  But in general
>> terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and unified civil
>> society position to which most of us subscribe, not only pushing back
>> against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its deficits with respect
>> to the WSIS process criteria (openness, multi-stakeholderism, etc), but
>> being quite specific about the issues on the table for WCIT.  What issues
>> do we already know are the key ones for our members or constituents?
>>
>> So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more
>> progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at
>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Policy Officer
>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>> Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
>> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 259 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/a00cb635/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Oct 26 10:54:40 2012
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:24:40 +0530
Subject: ITU statement thread
In-Reply-To: <508A9BC1.7000704@cis-india.org>
References: <506ABFD0.2030509@ciroap.org> <507F17AB.5010708@cdt.org> <624F24AB-8AB0-463C-9D7F-60091CA78C03@uzh.ch> <508A836F.50201@itforchange.net> <CA+4KnA-Rq3pBSi2ygjc9JVG9g5fbubtkr9EMK8k_kx75Jz5yCg@mail.gmail.com> <508A9BC1.7000704@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <508AA430.7010909@itforchange.net>


Dear Pranesh,

Thanks for your comments. Some responses inline.

On Friday 26 October 2012 07:48 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Dear Parminder and Gene,
> Excellent points. Just one word of caution over points 3-5:  While 3-5 
> are a contentious even substantively, I think it's worth pointing out 
> that the private sector do not have a seat at the negotiating table 
> and have to go through states.

I did not understand what are you proposing here. Please elaborate. I 
dont think it is civil society's job to seek seats for the private 
sector at the negotiating table. While of course they should be 
consulted and participate in pre policy negotiating/ making processes. 
Civil society actors as complementary public interest players (to 
governments) must be consulted and participate in these pre policy 
making processes even (much) more. Unless you mean /pre/ policy 
negotiating/ making processes, and I am wrong in putting the 
interpretation on your language that I am putting, your proposition is 
quite  problematic for me to accept.
> While the change in the telecom landscape since 1988 (especially 
> privatization) might necessitate thinking along these lines,


It is also a completely wrong notion, although often presented, that 
just because the telecom sector now has many, or is full of, private/ 
business sector players, /therefore/, they must have a seat at the 
policy negotiating table. Private sector makes all the drugs and health 
equipment, and are a very big part of health services. So does it mean 
private players should have a seat at the negotiating table at WHO. 
Private sector owns most IP, so should they have seat at the negotiating 
table at WIPO. And they do almost all the trade, and so, also at WTO. I 
am sure you dont mean what it seems you mean above by saying that since 
telecom sector is now full of private players, we should be thinking on 
lines of having the private sector have a seat at the negotiating table.

> it is also important to think about how ideas of multistakeholderism 
> and democratization of decision-making fit in here.

Yes, true. I missed mentioning that. ITUs participatory processes are 
terrible. They must change and we must make specific recommendations 
about it. Preferably lets clearly state what kind of participation model 
do we seek. Meanwhile, since ITRs are general principles level, we can 
ask for an element to be included in the ITRs for transparency and 
greater participation of all stakeholders in policy making processes.

regards,

parminder
>
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
> Gene Kimmelman [2012-10-26 18:38]:
>> I totally agree with Parminder's observations on points 1-4 (I need 
>> think
>> more about 5., and how "operating agencies" will be interpreted); I'm
>> hoping our conversations can identify key points of civil society 
>> agreement
>> and not get caught up in all the details of the ITR proposals. I'd just
>> like to highlight the importance of focusing on the transport layer,
>> preserving the appropriate definition of "telecommunications" to ensure
>> that transport bottlenecks can and should be regulated to preserve 
>> network
>> neutrality/prevent undue discrimination and should be platforms for 
>> access
>> to affordable essential communications services.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM, parminder 
>> <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>
>>>   Hi Bill/ All
>>>
>>> Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy right now, but will
>>> put forward some ideas from my emerging, and yet tentative, views on 
>>> the
>>> current draft of ITRs, which I will have to go through again in a 
>>> properly
>>> through manner.
>>>
>>> I see four sets of issues that are most important, and they are as 
>>> follows:
>>>
>>> *1. State control over Internet routing system*
>>>
>>> This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR debate,
>>> even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is rightly 
>>> feared
>>> that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries like China and 
>>> Iran to
>>> develop strict state control over the routing of Internet traffic which
>>> today is globally ordered to a large extent. Earlier inputs of these
>>> countries into the ITR draft were rather more explicit in this 
>>> regard. Even
>>> though rendered relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there is
>>> significant text still there that can be used for a tightly controlled
>>> Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can lead to
>>> nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.
>>>
>>> In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30 which 
>>> deals
>>> with this issue. Options range from 'states right to know which 
>>> routes are
>>> used', to 'states determining which routes are used', to 'imposing any
>>> routing regulation in this regard'. My proposal is to go with one of 
>>> the
>>> listed options which is to suppress section 30 altogether; so, no 
>>> language
>>> on this issue at all.
>>>
>>> *2. ITU and CIRs management*
>>>
>>> One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to, and vide
>>> the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed by the
>>> distributed CIR management system as it exists at present.  In the 
>>> current
>>> draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this regard of ITU's feared
>>> encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus system . The options in the
>>> current draft regarding this section range from 'naming, numbering,
>>> addressing and identification resources will not be mis-used' and 
>>> 'assigned
>>> resources would only be used for the agreed purposes' to 'all ITU
>>> recommendations will apply to naming, numbering, addressing and
>>> identification resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation 
>>> states,
>>> if they elect to, can control these resources within their 
>>> territories for
>>> the sake of international communication'.
>>>
>>> If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to names and
>>> numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping encroachment on 
>>> ICANN's
>>> remit. One option in the current draft lists a set of specific ITU
>>> recommendations that will apply (these need to be studied individually
>>> which I havent). Other options are more open ended, which means 
>>> future ITU
>>> recommendations may also apply, which, may mean that ITU can 
>>> formally enter
>>> into doing and/or supervising ICANN's work. This becomes more 
>>> problematic
>>> when seen along with draft options that make ITRs obligatory and not 
>>> just
>>> a set of general principles. We should speak up against all such 
>>> efforts to
>>> take over, or even substantially affect, the current distributed 
>>> system of
>>> CIRs management.
>>>
>>> *3. Definitional issues in the ITRs, telecom or Internet*
>>>
>>> Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The issue is
>>> really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus under ITRs 
>>> and ITU
>>> has its problems and a completely new kind of global regulatory 
>>> system may
>>> then be built over it, which would hurt the way Internet has 
>>> developed and
>>> needs to develop. However, it is also difficult to just argue that, 
>>> when we
>>> are in times we are in, Internet traffic will be excluded from telecom
>>> definition, because that would beg the question - what then remains of
>>> telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based convergence. Is 
>>> then ITU
>>> to close down as traditional telephony disappears. Perhaps more
>>> importantly, correspondingly, does this new definitional approach 
>>> also mean
>>> that national level telecom regulatory systems like FCC and TRAI 
>>> wind up
>>> sooner or later.
>>>
>>> I dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts seeking
>>> complete deregulation of the entire communications systems that, for
>>> instance,  are at present being made in the US, which employ 
>>> definitional
>>> logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying Internet not as a
>>> telecommunication but as an information service and thus not subject to
>>> common carriage or net neutrality provisions, and similarly rescuing 
>>> VoIP
>>> services from universal service obligations.) At the same time, it is
>>> necessary to resist providing constitutional basis to the ITU which 
>>> can be
>>> used to for control of content and application layers. This is the 
>>> dilemma.
>>> What would the implications of putting Internet under 
>>> telecommunications in
>>> the definitional and other sections? What does adding 'processing' 
>>> signals
>>> to just sending, transporting and receiving  signals does to what 
>>> happens
>>> in the future vis a vis ITU's role? (These are all existing optional
>>> language in the current draft.)
>>>
>>> This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time on. My
>>> tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the transport /
>>> infrastructural layer is included in the definition of 
>>> telecommunication
>>> (which also is closest to reality) and thus in ITR's remit. At the same
>>> time content and application layers are explicitly excluded. 
>>> Contributing
>>> the right language in this respect may be one of the most important 
>>> things
>>> that we can do. But as I said, this requires a lot of thinking and
>>> discussion among us.
>>>
>>> In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of 'security' 
>>> would
>>> become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may be an issue we may 
>>> have to
>>> separately treat in our submission, becuase there is also a lot of 
>>> tricky
>>> language in the current draft around this issue.
>>>
>>> *4. Net neutrality or an open Internet
>>>
>>> *We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a 'sender pays'
>>> arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it. Everywhere it is
>>> recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net neutrality 
>>> cannot
>>> survive with regulatory intervention, or at least some kind of 
>>> normative
>>> soft pressure from regulatory quarters. So if there is an issue called
>>> 'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then there is perhaps 
>>> some
>>> role for a global regulatory system - if not of enforceable rules, 
>>> at least
>>> for providing normative frameworks and general principles. And net
>>> neutrality concerns the transport layer, net neutrality concerns can be
>>> accommodated even while we do the above mentioned 'definitional
>>> separations' about what part of the Internet is telecom and which not.
>>>
>>>   While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for 
>>> reasons one
>>> can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US is the sender 
>>> pays
>>> principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some way to promote a
>>> normative framework for net neutrality or an open Internet - or even 
>>> more
>>> specific things like open peering and the such.
>>>
>>> I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS term 
>>> which can
>>> become the normative indication for violation of net neutrality and it
>>> should be opposed.
>>>
>>> *5. Some sundry issues
>>>
>>> *Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may require
>>> separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One, 
>>> whether ITRs
>>> should stay as general principles or they should become mandatory. 
>>> These is
>>> alternative language in the current draft on these option. I think we
>>> should seek that ITRs stay as general principles. Second, if the
>>> principal parties that are subject to ITRs should remain 
>>> 'administrations'
>>> or be changed to 'member states and operating agencies'. I think the
>>> telecom environment has become complex and diverse enough to require 
>>> the
>>> more flexible term 'operating agencies' to be included.
>>>
>>> Thanks, and look forward to listen to other people's views on this.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>   On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone
>>>
>>>   Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.
>>>
>>>   A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on possible ways to
>>> boot up this process.  One option considered was to have some of the 
>>> folks
>>> that most closely follow the issues around the two statements get 
>>> started
>>> with some drafting of bits for collective consideration, but we 
>>> ultimately
>>> decided this was a bad idea.  With a diverse group, some of whom may 
>>> not
>>> have worked together before, it seemed better to move in a completely
>>> inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so that anyone who wants to
>>> follow or weigh in can do so at the most formative stages. Setting up
>>> these lists seemed a good way to get that started, and we might want 
>>> to try
>>> pushing as far as we can before meeting so the F2F bit is less 
>>> stressed.
>>>   So let's see what we can do?
>>>
>>>   I guess the first and foundational question is what style of 
>>> letter with
>>> what principal focus.  I've stated my views previously,
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to the
>>> ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is 
>>> much
>>> more doable.
>>>
>>>
>>> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement.
>>>   Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the 
>>> process,
>>> e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, watershed, 
>>> historic
>>> (quoting the press office) release of a document that had already been
>>> leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the zeitgeist in tower, 
>>> this was
>>> news.  And more generally, those statements made senior staff who'd
>>> previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering among the 
>>> riff
>>> raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive perception management
>>> gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling
>>> critics that their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
>>>
>>>   What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more 
>>> focused
>>> on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the 
>>> conference chair
>>> declare some sessions open to the public.  One imagines there will 
>>> be push
>>> back from the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case.
>>>   Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that 
>>> could be
>>> problematic for the Internet and offer substantive counterpoints.  
>>> Ideally,
>>> these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may have real
>>> legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of overreach and that
>>> there are other, more effective ways to deal with them than via a
>>> multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and
>>> content.  If we do that, at least some delegations might have a look 
>>> before
>>> tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment call into the 
>>> trash, and
>>> that would establish another reference point for delegates carrying 
>>> similar
>>> messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main 
>>> session
>>> in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up the main
>>> topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and each 
>>> prepare a
>>> tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point conclusions,
>>> that sort of a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the
>>> proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is overreaching and 
>>> likely to
>>> have unforeseen negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go
>>> about addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred language.  
>>> Maybe not
>>> in that order, but you see what I mean.  Aggregation of and editing for
>>> consistent style a bunch of such mini-statements would be fairly 
>>> easy to do
>>> in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau and closing, and voila, we'd 
>>> have
>>> the sort of input document delegates are used to reading, and 
>>> perhaps one
>>> that wouldn't head straight to the circular file.
>>>
>>>   Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make 
>>> references to
>>> civil society thinks this or feels that.  Many delegates read that as
>>> "fifth column for Western domination thinks this or feels that."  
>>> They know
>>> who we are, basically.  Let's not stand around calling attention to 
>>> it, and
>>> just stick to the issues at hand.
>>>
>>>   At least, that's what I'd do.
>>>
>>>   Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start in on?
>>>
>>>   Best,
>>>
>>>   Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>>
>>>   Hi all,
>>>
>>> Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in another
>>> thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to some 
>>> of the
>>> existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many of you are
>>> familiar with already!), including:
>>>
>>> https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
>>> https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet 
>>>
>>> http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/
>>>
>>> In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns, CDT has
>>> identified several categories of proposals that both raise human rights
>>> concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at WCIT.  
>>> I've
>>> included some discussion and text of proposals below, and would be very
>>> curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific issues raise 
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Emma
>>>
>>> 1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a new
>>> provision that would give states the right to know where traffic has 
>>> been
>>> routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for security 
>>> and fraud
>>> purposes.  If this provision is applied to regulate the route of 
>>> Internet
>>> traffic, it would require technical changes to the Internet that 
>>> would give
>>> governments additional tools to block traffic to and from certain 
>>> websites
>>> or countries.  Regulations on routing could also enable greater 
>>> tracking of
>>> users by their IP addresses. This provision is put forward in the 
>>> name of
>>> security and fraud, but their necessity, proportionality, and impact 
>>> on the
>>> right to privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully assessed.
>>>
>>> Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have proposed 
>>> that "A
>>> Member State shall have the right to know through where its traffic has
>>> been routed, and should have the right to impose any routing 
>>> regulations in
>>> this regard, for purposes of security and countering fraud." A similar
>>> proposal has been made by the Regional Commonwealth group of states 
>>> (RCC)
>>> and is also supported by Russia.
>>>
>>> 2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of 
>>> telecommunications -
>>> Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
>>> states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member States to
>>> ensure access and use of international telecommunications services, but
>>> allows an exception for when telecommunications is used "for the 
>>> purpose of
>>> interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty,
>>> national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other 
>>> States,
>>> or to divulge information of a sensitive nature."  The Internet has 
>>> become
>>> an essential tool for the exercise of a range of human rights.  This
>>> proposal is inconsistent with human rights standards that articulate 
>>> when
>>> governments may permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression 
>>> under
>>> Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR.  This proposal 
>>> could be
>>> used to legitimize
>>> restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of 
>>> expression,
>>> association, and assembly.
>>>
>>> 3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European Telecommunications
>>> Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
>>> Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how networks 
>>> on the
>>> Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a 
>>> "sending party
>>> pays" system, where content providers would have to pay fees to 
>>> reach the
>>> user who wants to access that content.  Some civil society 
>>> organizations
>>> believe this system would result in increased costs of Internet 
>>> access for
>>> users, especially in less developed countries, since the fees 
>>> companies pay
>>> would be then passed on to users.  The ETNO proposal also encourages 
>>> ISPs
>>> to make special deals with content companies to prioritize their 
>>> content,
>>> which undermines net neutrality online.  Taken together, the effect 
>>> of the
>>> ETNO  proposal would be to increase the cost of Internet access and 
>>> limit
>>> equal access to information online.  Again, the full impact of the ETNO
>>> proposal on Internet access and the ability of individuals to seek and
>>> receive information online must be fully assessed.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Emma J. Llansó
>>> Policy Counsel
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two 
>>> output
>>> documents, which a core of interested participants could join to 
>>> come up
>>> with some zero-draft text as a starting point for discussions in Baku.
>>>
>>> As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested we
>>> bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am 
>>> starting
>>> two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm beginning 
>>> with the
>>> ITU statement.
>>>
>>> I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not 
>>> compared to
>>> some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text. But in 
>>> general
>>> terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and unified 
>>> civil
>>> society position to which most of us subscribe, not only pushing back
>>> against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its deficits with 
>>> respect
>>> to the WSIS process criteria (openness, multi-stakeholderism, etc), but
>>> being quite specific about the issues on the table for WCIT. What 
>>> issues
>>> do we already know are the key ones for our members or constituents?
>>>
>>> So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more
>>> progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at
>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Policy Officer
>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>>> Malaysia
>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
>>> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>>>
>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality 
>>> notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/6d3d2456/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Oct  2 07:56:33 2012
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:56:33 +0200
Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org>
References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org>
	<50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org>
	<506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20121002135633.777d5adb@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> http://igf-online.net/bestbits
> 
> It means that there is less time for each drafting session, because
> they are no longer being held simultaneously.  It also means that Day
> 1 is heavier than Day 2 now.  What do you think?  Looking forward to
> your further comments, if any.

I note than on Sunday in the afternoon, there is a block "14:00 - 15:00
- Present and discuss draft text from morning" while there's nothing
equivalent on Saturday for the WCIT statement.

However the WCIT statement is the one which will be particularly urgent
to finalize so that we will meet that 3 November 2012 (23.59 hours,
Geneva time) deadline. The Civil society IG principles for the IGF
draft does not need to be finalized at Best Bits, and in fact I think
there is value in keeping it open for further consideration
of additional viewpoints from civil society persons and organizations
that for whatever reasons are not participating in the Best Bits
meeting.

For this reason, I wonder if it would be feasible to move the 
"Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues"
theme to Sunday, removing the "Present and discuss draft text from
morning" item from the plan for Sunday, so that we have additional time
on Saturday afternoon to finalize the WCIT statement before the
deadline?

Greetings,
Norbert


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Oct 26 11:03:26 2012
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:33:26 +0530
Subject: ITU statement thread
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA-Rq3pBSi2ygjc9JVG9g5fbubtkr9EMK8k_kx75Jz5yCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <506ABFD0.2030509@ciroap.org> <507F17AB.5010708@cdt.org> <624F24AB-8AB0-463C-9D7F-60091CA78C03@uzh.ch> <508A836F.50201@itforchange.net> <CA+4KnA-Rq3pBSi2ygjc9JVG9g5fbubtkr9EMK8k_kx75Jz5yCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <508AA63E.4000304@itforchange.net>


On Friday 26 October 2012 06:38 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
> I totally agree with Parminder's observations on points 1-4 (I need 
> think more about 5., and how "operating agencies" will be interpreted);

If the fear is that it may at some time be used for ITU to seek 
jurisdiction over ICANN plus institutions, maybe we can make it 'telecom 
operating agencies' or just 'telecom agencies' removing any possibility 
of such a mis representation. parminder


> I'm hoping our conversations can identify key points of civil society 
> agreement and not get caught up in all the details of the ITR 
> proposals.  I'd just like to highlight the importance of focusing on 
> the transport layer, preserving the appropriate definition of 
> "telecommunications" to ensure that transport bottlenecks can and 
> should be regulated to preserve network neutrality/prevent undue 
> discrimination and should be platforms for access to affordable 
> essential communications services.
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Bill/ All
>
>     Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy right now, but
>     will put forward some ideas from my emerging, and yet tentative,
>     views on the current draft of ITRs, which I will have to go
>     through again in a properly through manner.
>
>     I see four sets of issues that are most important, and they are as
>     follows:
>
>     /1. State control over Internet routing system/
>
>     This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR
>     debate, even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is
>     rightly feared that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries
>     like China and Iran to develop strict state control over the
>     routing of Internet traffic which today is globally ordered to a
>     large extent. Earlier inputs of these countries into the ITR draft
>     were rather more explicit in this regard. Even though rendered
>     relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there is significant
>     text still there that can be used for a tightly controlled
>     Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can
>     lead to nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.
>
>     In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30
>     which deals with this issue. Options range from 'states right to
>     know which routes are used', to 'states determining which routes
>     are used', to 'imposing any routing regulation in this regard'. My
>     proposal is to go with one of the listed options which is to
>     suppress section 30 altogether; so, no language on this issue at all.
>
>     /2. ITU and CIRs management/
>
>     One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to, and
>     vide the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed
>     by the distributed CIR management system as it exists at present. 
>     In the current draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this
>     regard of ITU's feared encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus
>     system . The options in the current draft regarding this section
>     range from 'naming, numbering, addressing and identification
>     resources will not be mis-used' and 'assigned resources would only
>     be used for the agreed purposes' to 'all ITU recommendations will
>     apply to naming, numbering, addressing and identification
>     resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation states, if they
>     elect to, can control these resources within their territories for
>     the sake of international communication'.
>
>     If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to
>     names and numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping
>     encroachment on ICANN's remit. One option in the current draft
>     lists a set of specific ITU recommendations that will apply (these
>     need to be studied individually which I havent). Other options are
>     more open ended, which means future ITU recommendations may also
>     apply, which, may mean that ITU can formally enter into doing
>     and/or supervising ICANN's work. This becomes more problematic
>     when seen along with draft options that make ITRs obligatory and
>     not just a set of general principles. We should speak up against
>     all such efforts to take over, or even substantially affect, the
>     current distributed system of CIRs management.
>
>     /3. Definitional issues in the ITRs, telecom or Internet/
>
>     Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The
>     issue is really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus
>     under ITRs and ITU has its problems and a completely new kind of
>     global regulatory system may then be built over it, which would
>     hurt the way Internet has developed and needs to develop. However,
>     it is also difficult to just argue that, when we are in times we
>     are in, Internet traffic will be excluded from telecom definition,
>     because that would beg the question - what then remains of
>     telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based convergence. Is
>     then ITU to close down as traditional telephony disappears.
>     Perhaps more importantly, correspondingly, does this new
>     definitional approach also mean that national level telecom
>     regulatory systems like FCC and TRAI wind up sooner or later.
>
>     I dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts seeking
>     complete deregulation of the entire communications systems that,
>     for instance, are at present being made in the US, which employ
>     definitional logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying
>     Internet not as a telecommunication but as an information service
>     and thus not subject to common carriage or net neutrality
>     provisions, and similarly rescuing VoIP services from universal
>     service obligations.) At the same time, it is necessary to resist
>     providing constitutional basis to the ITU which can be used to for
>     control of content and application layers. This is the dilemma.
>     What would the implications of putting Internet under
>     telecommunications in the definitional and other sections? What
>     does adding 'processing' signals to just sending, transporting and
>     receiving  signals does to what happens in the future vis a vis
>     ITU's role? (These are all existing optional language in the
>     current draft.)
>
>     This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time on. My
>     tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the transport /
>     infrastructural layer is included in the definition of
>     telecommunication (which also is closest to reality) and thus in
>     ITR's remit. At the same time content and application layers are
>     explicitly excluded. Contributing the right language in this
>     respect may be one of the most important things that we can do.
>     But as I said, this requires a lot of thinking and discussion
>     among us.
>
>     In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of
>     'security' would become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may
>     be an issue we may have to separately treat in our submission,
>     becuase there is also a lot of tricky language in the current
>     draft around this issue.
>
>     /4. Net neutrality or an open Internet
>
>     /We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a 'sender
>     pays' arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it.
>     Everywhere it is recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory
>     issue. Net neutrality cannot survive with regulatory intervention,
>     or at least some kind of normative soft pressure from regulatory
>     quarters. So if there is an issue called 'global net neutrality'
>     (CoE's experts report) then there is perhaps some role for a
>     global regulatory system - if not of enforceable rules, at least
>     for providing normative frameworks and general principles. And net
>     neutrality concerns the transport layer, net neutrality concerns
>     can be accommodated even while we do the above mentioned
>     'definitional separations' about what part of the Internet is
>     telecom and which not.
>
>      While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for
>     reasons one can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US
>     is the sender pays principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text
>     in some way to promote a normative framework for net neutrality or
>     an open Internet - or even more specific things like open peering
>     and the such.
>
>     I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS term
>     which can become the normative indication for violation of net
>     neutrality and it should be opposed.
>
>     /5. Some sundry issues
>
>     /Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may require
>     separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One,
>     whether ITRs should stay as general principles or they should
>     become mandatory. These is alternative language in the current
>     draft on these option. I think we should seek that ITRs stay as
>     general principles. Second, if the principal parties that are
>     subject to ITRs should remain 'administrations' or be changed to
>     'member states and operating agencies'. I think the telecom
>     environment has become complex and diverse enough to require the
>     more flexible term 'operating agencies' to be included.
>
>     Thanks, and look forward to listen to other people's views on this.
>
>     parminder
>
>     On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>     Hi everyone
>>
>>     Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.
>>
>>     A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on possible
>>     ways to boot up this process.  One option considered was to have
>>     some of the folks that most closely follow the issues around the
>>     two statements get started with some drafting of bits for
>>     collective consideration, but we ultimately decided this was a
>>     bad idea.  With a diverse group, some of whom may not have worked
>>     together before, it seemed better to move in a completely
>>     inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so that anyone who
>>     wants to follow or weigh in can do so at the most formative
>>     stages.  Setting up these lists seemed a good way to get that
>>     started, and we might want to try pushing as far as we can before
>>     meeting so the F2F bit is less stressed.  So let's see what we
>>     can do?
>>
>>     I guess the first and foundational question is what style of
>>     letter with what principal focus.  I've stated my views previously,
>>
>>
>>     On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>     On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of
>>>>     preachments to the ITU on how should be conduct its business, I
>>>>     am game for it. That is much more doable. 
>>>
>>>     I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT
>>>     statement.  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful
>>>     earlier in the process, e.g. by pressing governments to agree to
>>>     the landmark, watershed, historic (quoting the press office)
>>>     release of a document that had already been leaked and widely
>>>     accessed.  If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was news.
>>>      And more generally, those statements made senior staff who'd
>>>     previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering among
>>>     the riff raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive
>>>     perception management gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm"
>>>     (tee hee) and website telling critics that their concerns are
>>>     all myths.  So all good.
>>>
>>>     What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more
>>>     focused on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that
>>>     the conference chair declare some sessions open to the public.
>>>      One imagines there will be push back from the usual suspects;
>>>     it'd be good to briefly make the case.  Beyond this, I'd hope we
>>>     can focus on the concrete proposals that could be problematic
>>>     for the Internet and offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally,
>>>     these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may have
>>>     real legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of
>>>     overreach and that there are other, more effective ways to deal
>>>     with them than via a multilateral treaty on telecom. In other
>>>     words, be positive in tone and content.  If we do that, at least
>>>     some delegations might have a look before tossing the responses
>>>     to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and that would
>>>     establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar
>>>     messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR
>>>     main session in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>>
>>
>>     So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up the
>>     main topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and
>>     each prepare a tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with
>>     bullet point conclusions, that sort of a) respectfully
>>     acknowledges the concerns behind the proposals, b) says why the
>>     proposed solution is overreaching and likely to have unforeseen
>>     negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go about
>>     addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred language.  Maybe
>>     not in that order, but you see what I mean.  Aggregation of and
>>     editing for consistent style a bunch of such mini-statements
>>     would be fairly easy to do in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau
>>     and closing, and voila, we'd have the sort of input document
>>     delegates are used to reading, and perhaps one that wouldn't head
>>     straight to the circular file.
>>
>>     Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make
>>     references to civil society thinks this or feels that.  Many
>>     delegates read that as "fifth column for Western
>>     domination thinks this or feels that."  They know who we are,
>>     basically.  Let's not stand around calling attention to it, and
>>     just stick to the issues at hand.
>>
>>     At least, that's what I'd do.
>>
>>     Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start in on?
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>
>>>     Hi all,
>>>
>>>     Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in
>>>     another thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide
>>>     links to some of the existing civil society statements about the
>>>     WCIT (which many of you are familiar with already!), including:
>>>
>>>     https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
>>>     https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet
>>>     http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/
>>>
>>>     In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns,
>>>     CDT has identified several categories of proposals that both
>>>     raise human rights concerns and seem likely to be the subject of
>>>     much debate at WCIT.  I've included some discussion and text of
>>>     proposals below, and would be very curious to hear others'
>>>     thoughts about what specific issues raise concerns.
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>     Emma
>>>
>>>     1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a
>>>     new provision that would give states the right to know where
>>>     traffic has been routed, and the right to regulate routing of
>>>     traffic for security and fraud purposes.  If this provision is
>>>     applied to regulate the route of Internet traffic, it would
>>>     require technical changes to the Internet that would give
>>>     governments additional tools to block traffic to and from
>>>     certain websites or countries.  Regulations on routing could
>>>     also enable greater tracking of users by their IP addresses.
>>>     This provision is put forward in the name of security and fraud,
>>>     but their necessity, proportionality, and impact on the right to
>>>     privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully assessed.
>>>
>>>     Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have
>>>     proposed that "A Member State shall have the right to know
>>>     through where its traffic has been routed, and should have the
>>>     right to impose any routing regulations in this regard, for
>>>     purposes of security and countering fraud." A similar proposal
>>>     has been made by the Regional Commonwealth group of states (RCC)
>>>     and is also supported by Russia.
>>>
>>>     2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of
>>>     telecommunications - Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
>>>     states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member
>>>     States to ensure access and use of international
>>>     telecommunications services, but allows an exception for when
>>>     telecommunications is used "for the purpose of interfering in
>>>     the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national
>>>     security, territorial integrity and public safety of other
>>>     States, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature."  The
>>>     Internet has become an essential tool for the exercise of a
>>>     range of human rights.  This proposal is inconsistent with human
>>>     rights standards that articulate when governments may
>>>     permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression under
>>>     Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR.  This
>>>     proposal could be used to legitimize
>>>     restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of
>>>     expression, association, and assembly.
>>>
>>>     3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European
>>>     Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
>>>     Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how
>>>     networks on the Internet connect to each other. For example,
>>>     ETNO proposes a "sending party pays" system, where content
>>>     providers would have to pay fees to reach the user who wants to
>>>     access that content.  Some civil society organizations believe
>>>     this system would result in increased costs of Internet access
>>>     for users, especially in less developed countries, since the
>>>     fees companies pay would be then passed on to users.  The ETNO
>>>     proposal also encourages ISPs to make special deals with content
>>>     companies to prioritize their content, which undermines net
>>>     neutrality online.  Taken together, the effect of the ETNO 
>>>     proposal would be to increase the cost of Internet access and
>>>     limit equal access to information online.  Again, the full
>>>     impact of the ETNO proposal on Internet access and the ability
>>>     of individuals to seek and receive information online must be
>>>     fully assessed.
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Emma J. Llansó
>>>     Policy Counsel
>>>     Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>     1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>>     Washington, DC 20006
>>>     202-407-8818 <tel:202-407-8818> | @cendemtech
>>>     <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>     The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our
>>>>     two output documents, which a core of interested participants
>>>>     could join to come up with some zero-draft text as a starting
>>>>     point for discussions in Baku.
>>>>
>>>>     As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been
>>>>     suggested we bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To
>>>>     that end, I am starting two threads, for discussion of the two
>>>>     statements.  I'm beginning with the ITU statement.
>>>>
>>>>     I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not
>>>>     compared to some of you), so I am not going to propose any
>>>>     actual text.  But in general terms, it is hoped that the
>>>>     statement would by a strong and unified civil society position
>>>>     to which most of us subscribe, not only pushing back against
>>>>     the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its deficits with
>>>>     respect to the WSIS process criteria (openness,
>>>>     multi-stakeholderism, etc), but being quite specific about the
>>>>     issues on the table for WCIT.  What issues do we already know
>>>>     are the key ones for our members or constituents?
>>>>
>>>>     So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are
>>>>     more progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently
>>>>     empty) pad at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>
>>>>     *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>     Senior Policy Officer
>>>>     Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
>>>>     consumers*
>>>>     Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>>>     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>>>>     Lumpur, Malaysia
>>>>     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>>>
>>>>     *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
>>>>     http://consint.info/RightsMission
>>>>
>>>>     @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>>>>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> |
>>>>     www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>>     <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>>>
>>>>     Read our email confidentiality notice
>>>>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>>>>     Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/f1823d31/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Fri Oct 26 11:33:03 2012
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:33:03 +0200
Subject: ITU statement thread
References: <508A836F.50201@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1E8224A3-3A5C-4EE7-BB98-2ED59D733D90@uzh.ch>

Hi

Thanks Parminder for the detailed response, very helpful.  We can plunge into debating the details of these and other points, but shouldn't we first try to agree on the basic architecture?  Some options might include

1.  A narrative treatment of priority issues, per the below (one risk—could get long winded, and the more detailed we are, the greater the scope for disagreement amongst us on particulars)

2.  An article by article concise statement of positions, like 1-2 para each, maybe bullets

3.  A CS Proposal for the Work of the Conference, i.e. in the form of an ITR edit? 

4.  An ITR edit with like one para parenthetical explanations

5.  Something else…

I suspect 3 or 4 might elicit giggles in the tower and perhaps elsewhere, if we care…

At present I think I tend toward the 2nd option, sticking close to positions rather than getting too much into analytical reconstructions of each issue-area, and per previous 

>> a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is overreaching and likely to have unforeseen negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go about addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred language. 

or maybe the sensibility behind that could just be stated once in a chapeau...  In any event, I hope we can avoid a tone that sounds overly righteous and finger wagging in order to avoid playing into the caricatures that have been deployed to delegitimize criticisms etc.

Just my two cents, let's hear from others and see if we can start leaning toward a shared framework.

Best,

Bill


Begin forwarded message:

> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Date: October 26, 2012 2:34:55 PM GMT+02:00
> To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: ITU statement thread
> 
> Hi Bill/ All
> 
> Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy right now, but will put forward some ideas from my emerging, and yet tentative, views on the current draft of ITRs, which I will have to go through again in a           properly through manner.
> 
> I see four sets of issues that are most important, and they are as follows:
> 
> 1. State control over Internet routing system
> This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR debate, even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is rightly feared that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries like China and Iran to develop strict state control over the routing of Internet traffic which today is globally ordered to a large extent. Earlier inputs of these countries into the ITR draft were rather more explicit in this regard. Even though rendered relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there is significant text still there that can be used for a tightly controlled Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can lead to nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.
> In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30 which deals with this issue. Options range from 'states right to know which routes are used', to 'states determining which routes are used', to 'imposing any routing regulation in this regard'. My proposal is to go with one of the listed options which is to suppress section 30 altogether; so, no language on this issue at all.
> 
> 2. ITU and CIRs management
> One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to, and vide the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed by the distributed CIR management system as it exists at present.  In the current draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this regard of ITU's feared encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus system . The options in the current draft regarding this section range from 'naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources will not be mis-used' and 'assigned resources would only be used for the agreed purposes' to 'all ITU recommendations will apply to naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation states, if they elect to, can control these resources within their territories for the sake of international communication'.
> If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to names and numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping encroachment on ICANN's remit. One option in the current draft lists a set of specific ITU recommendations that will apply (these need to be studied individually which I havent). Other options are more open ended, which means future ITU recommendations may also apply, which, may mean that ITU can formally enter into doing and/or supervising ICANN's work. This becomes more problematic when seen along with draft options that make ITRs obligatory and not just a set of general principles. We should speak up against all such efforts to take over, or even substantially affect, the current distributed system of CIRs management.
> 3. Definitional issues in the ITRs, telecom or Internet
> Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The issue is really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus under ITRs and ITU has its problems and a completely new kind of global regulatory system may then be built over it, which would hurt the way Internet has developed and needs to develop. However, it is also difficult to just argue that, when we are in times we are in, Internet traffic will be excluded from telecom definition, because that would beg the question - what then remains of telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based convergence. Is then ITU to close down as traditional telephony disappears. Perhaps more importantly, correspondingly, does this new definitional approach also mean that national level telecom regulatory systems like FCC and TRAI wind up sooner or later.
> I dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts seeking complete deregulation of the entire communications systems that, for instance,  are at present being made in the US, which employ definitional logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying Internet not as a telecommunication but as an information service and thus not subject to common carriage or net neutrality provisions, and similarly rescuing VoIP services from universal service obligations.) At the same time, it is necessary to resist providing constitutional basis to the ITU which can be used to for control of content and application layers. This is the dilemma. What would the implications of putting Internet under telecommunications in the definitional and other sections? What does adding 'processing' signals to just sending, transporting and receiving  signals does to what happens in the future vis a vis ITU's role? (These are all existing optional language in the current draft.)
> 
> This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time on. My tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the transport / infrastructural layer is included in the definition of telecommunication (which also is closest to reality) and thus in ITR's remit. At the same time content and application layers are explicitly excluded. Contributing the right language in this respect may be one of the most important           things that we can do. But as I said, this requires a lot of thinking and discussion among us. 
> 
> In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of 'security' would become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may be an issue we may have to separately treat in our submission, becuase there is also a lot of tricky language in the current draft around this issue. 
> 
> 4. Net neutrality or an open Internet 
> 
> We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a 'sender pays' arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it. Everywhere it is recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net neutrality cannot survive with regulatory intervention, or at least some kind of normative soft pressure from regulatory quarters. So if there is an issue called 'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then there is perhaps some role for a global regulatory system - if not of enforceable rules, at least for providing normative frameworks and general principles. And net neutrality concerns the transport layer, net neutrality concerns can be accommodated even while we do the above mentioned 'definitional separations' about what part of the Internet is telecom and which not. 
> 
>  While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for reasons one can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US is the sender pays principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some way to promote a normative framework for net neutrality or an open Internet - or even more specific things like open peering and the such. 
> 
> I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS term which can become the normative indication for violation of net neutrality and it should be opposed. 
> 
> 5. Some sundry issues
> 
> Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may require separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One, whether ITRs should stay as general principles or they should become mandatory. These is alternative language in the current draft on these option. I think we should seek that ITRs stay as general principles. Second, if the principal parties that are subject to ITRs should remain 'administrations' or be changed to 'member states and operating agencies'. I think the telecom environment has become complex and diverse enough to require the more flexible term 'operating agencies' to be included.
> Thanks, and look forward to listen to other people's views on this. 
> parminder 
> 
> On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi everyone
>> 
>> Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.
>> 
>> A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on possible ways to boot up this process.  One option considered was to have some of the folks that most closely follow the issues around the two statements get started with some drafting of bits for collective consideration, but we ultimately decided this was a bad idea.  With a diverse group, some of whom may not have worked together before, it seemed better to move in a completely inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so that anyone who wants to follow or weigh in can do so at the most formative stages.  Setting up these lists seemed a good way to get that started, and we might want to try pushing as far as we can before meeting so the F2F bit is less stressed.  So let's see what we can do?
>> 
>> I guess the first and foundational question is what style of letter with what principal focus.  I've stated my views previously,
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to the ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is much more doable. 
>>> 
>>> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement.  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the process, e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, watershed, historic (quoting the press office) release of a document that had already been leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was news.  And more generally, those statements made senior staff who'd previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering among the riff raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive perception management gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling critics that their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
>>> 
>>> What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more focused on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the conference chair declare some sessions open to the public.  One imagines there will be push back from the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case.  Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that could be problematic for the Internet and offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally, these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may have real legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of overreach and that there are other, more effective ways to deal with them than via a multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and content.  If we do that, at least some delegations might have a look before tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and that would establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main session in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up the main topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and each prepare a tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point conclusions, that sort of a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is overreaching and likely to have unforeseen negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go about addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred language.  Maybe not in that order, but you see what I mean.  Aggregation of and editing for consistent style a bunch of such mini-statements would be fairly easy to do in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau and closing, and voila, we'd have the sort of input document delegates are used to reading, and perhaps one that wouldn't head straight to the circular file.
>> 
>> Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make references to civil society thinks this or feels that.  Many delegates read that as "fifth column for Western domination thinks this or feels that."  They know who we are, basically.  Let's not stand around calling attention to it, and just stick to the issues at hand.
>> 
>> At least, that's what I'd do.
>> 
>> Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start in on?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in another thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to some of the existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many of you are familiar with already!), including: 
>>> 
>>> https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
>>> https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet
>>> http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/
>>> 
>>> In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns, CDT has identified several categories of proposals that both raise human rights concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at WCIT.  I've included some discussion and text of proposals below, and would be very curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific issues raise concerns.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Emma
>>> 
>>> 1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a new provision that would give states the right to know where traffic has been routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for security and fraud purposes.  If this provision is applied to regulate the route of Internet traffic, it would require technical changes to the Internet that would give governments additional tools to block traffic to and from certain websites or countries.  Regulations on routing could also enable greater tracking of users by their IP addresses. This provision is put forward in the name of security and fraud, but their necessity, proportionality, and impact on the right to privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully assessed.
>>> 
>>> Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have proposed that "A Member State shall have the right to know through where its traffic has been routed, and should have the right to impose any routing regulations in this regard, for purposes of security and countering fraud." A similar proposal has been made by the Regional Commonwealth group of states (RCC) and is also supported by Russia.
>>> 
>>> 2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of telecommunications - Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
>>> states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member States to ensure access and use of international telecommunications services, but allows an exception for when telecommunications is used "for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other States, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature."  The Internet has become an essential tool for the exercise of a range of human rights.  This proposal is inconsistent with human rights standards that articulate when governments may permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR.  This proposal could be used to legitimize
>>> restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly.
>>> 
>>> 3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
>>> Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how networks on the Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a "sending party pays" system, where content providers would have to pay fees to reach the user who wants to access that content.  Some civil society organizations believe this system would result in increased costs of Internet access for users, especially in less developed countries, since the fees companies pay would be then passed on to users.  The ETNO proposal also encourages ISPs to make special deals with content companies to prioritize their content, which undermines net neutrality online.  Taken together, the effect of the ETNO  proposal would be to increase the cost of Internet access and limit equal access to information online.  Again, the full impact of the ETNO proposal on Internet access and the ability of individuals to seek and receive information online must be fully assessed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Emma J. Llansó
>>> Policy Counsel
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two output documents, which a core of interested participants could join to come up with some zero-draft text as a starting point for discussions in Baku.
>>>> 
>>>> As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested we bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am starting two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm beginning with the ITU statement.
>>>> 
>>>> I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not compared to some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text.  But in general terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and unified civil society position to which most of us subscribe, not only pushing back against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its deficits with respect to the WSIS process criteria (openness, multi-stakeholderism, etc), but being quite specific about the issues on the table for WCIT.  What issues do we already know are the key ones for our members or constituents?
>>>> 
>>>> So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Senior Policy Officer
>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>> 
>>>> Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission
>>>> 
>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>> 
>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/ebc4091c/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Fri Oct 26 11:46:04 2012
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:46:04 -0400
Subject: ITU statement thread
In-Reply-To: <1E8224A3-3A5C-4EE7-BB98-2ED59D733D90@uzh.ch>
References: <508A836F.50201@itforchange.net>
	<1E8224A3-3A5C-4EE7-BB98-2ED59D733D90@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA9UOU7a4bP+mgfDZ4ejDOvpNBqzJZfes4KbiYf2vG5quA@mail.gmail.com>

For the purpose of maximizing the likelihood of support from many
participants, I suggest a SHORT narrative that identifies key concerns
(which could capture what might otherwise be done article by article),
which is both respectful of the proposals but also clear about concerns.
And for the most important civil society concerns which the ITU
cannot/should not seek to address, we may want to highlight the need for
member states to commit to taking these up in a timely manner in the most
appropriate jurisdictions (including multistakeholder processes).

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:33 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>wrote:

> Hi
>
> Thanks Parminder for the detailed response, very helpful.  We can plunge
> into debating the details of these and other points, but shouldn't we first
> try to agree on the basic architecture?  Some options might include
>
> 1.  A narrative treatment of priority issues, per the below (one
> risk—could get long winded, and the more detailed we are, the greater the
> scope for disagreement amongst us on particulars)
>
> 2.  An article by article concise statement of positions, like 1-2 para
> each, maybe bullets
>
> 3.  A CS Proposal for the Work of the Conference, i.e. in the form of an
> ITR edit?
>
> 4.  An ITR edit with like one para parenthetical explanations
>
> 5.  Something else…
>
> I suspect 3 or 4 might elicit giggles in the tower and perhaps elsewhere,
> if we care…
>
> At present I think I tend toward the 2nd option, sticking close to
> positions rather than getting too much into analytical reconstructions of
> each issue-area, and per previous
>
> a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the proposals, b) says
> why the proposed solution is overreaching and likely to have unforeseen
> negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go about addressing the
> problem, and d) offers preferred language.
>
>
> or maybe the sensibility behind that could just be stated once in a
> chapeau...  In any event, I hope we can avoid a tone that sounds overly
> righteous and finger wagging in order to avoid playing into the caricatures
> that have been deployed to delegitimize criticisms etc.
>
> Just my two cents, let's hear from others and see if we can start leaning
> toward a shared framework.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Date: *October 26, 2012 2:34:55 PM GMT+02:00
> *To: *bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject: **Re: ITU statement thread*
>
>  Hi Bill/ All
>
> Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy right now, but will
> put forward some ideas from my emerging, and yet tentative, views on the
> current draft of ITRs, which I will have to go through again in a properly
> through manner.
>
> I see four sets of issues that are most important, and they are as follows:
>
> *1. State control over Internet routing system*
>
> This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR debate,
> even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is rightly feared
> that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries like China and Iran to
> develop strict state control over the routing of Internet traffic which
> today is globally ordered to a large extent. Earlier inputs of these
> countries into the ITR draft were rather more explicit in this regard. Even
> though rendered relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there is
> significant text still there that can be used for a tightly controlled
> Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can lead to
> nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.
>
> In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30 which deals
> with this issue. Options range from 'states right to know which routes are
> used', to 'states determining which routes are used', to 'imposing any
> routing regulation in this regard'. My proposal is to go with one of the
> listed options which is to suppress section 30 altogether; so, no language
> on this issue at all.
>
> *2. ITU and CIRs management*
>
> One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to, and vide
> the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed by the
> distributed CIR management system as it exists at present.  In the current
> draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this regard of ITU's feared
> encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus system . The options in the
> current draft regarding this section range from 'naming, numbering,
> addressing and identification resources will not be mis-used' and 'assigned
> resources would only be used for the agreed purposes' to 'all ITU
> recommendations will apply to naming, numbering, addressing and
> identification resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation states,
> if they elect to, can control these resources within their territories for
> the sake of international communication'.
>
> If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to names and
> numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping encroachment on ICANN's
> remit. One option in the current draft lists a set of specific ITU
> recommendations that will apply (these need to be studied individually
> which I havent). Other options are more open ended, which means future ITU
> recommendations may also apply, which, may mean that ITU can formally enter
> into doing and/or supervising ICANN's work. This becomes more problematic
> when seen along with draft options that make ITRs obligatory and not just
> a set of general principles. We should speak up against all such efforts to
> take over, or even substantially affect, the current distributed system of
> CIRs management.
>
> *3. Definitional issues in the ITRs, telecom or Internet*
>
> Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The issue is
> really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus under ITRs and ITU
> has its problems and a completely new kind of global regulatory system may
> then be built over it, which would hurt the way Internet has developed and
> needs to develop. However, it is also difficult to just argue that, when we
> are in times we are in, Internet traffic will be excluded from telecom
> definition, because that would beg the question - what then remains of
> telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based convergence. Is then ITU
> to close down as traditional telephony disappears. Perhaps more
> importantly, correspondingly, does this new definitional approach also mean
> that national level telecom regulatory systems like FCC and TRAI wind up
> sooner or later.
>
> I dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts seeking
> complete deregulation of the entire communications systems that, for
> instance,  are at present being made in the US, which employ definitional
> logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying Internet not as a
> telecommunication but as an information service and thus not subject to
> common carriage or net neutrality provisions, and similarly rescuing VoIP
> services from universal service obligations.) At the same time, it is
> necessary to resist providing constitutional basis to the ITU which can be
> used to for control of content and application layers. This is the dilemma.
> What would the implications of putting Internet under telecommunications in
> the definitional and other sections? What does adding 'processing' signals
> to just sending, transporting and receiving  signals does to what happens
> in the future vis a vis ITU's role? (These are all existing optional
> language in the current draft.)
>
> This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time on. My
> tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the transport /
> infrastructural layer is included in the definition of telecommunication
> (which also is closest to reality) and thus in ITR's remit. At the same
> time content and application layers are explicitly excluded. Contributing
> the right language in this respect may be one of the most important things
> that we can do. But as I said, this requires a lot of thinking and
> discussion among us.
>
> In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of 'security' would
> become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may be an issue we may have to
> separately treat in our submission, becuase there is also a lot of tricky
> language in the current draft around this issue.
>
> *4. Net neutrality or an open Internet
>
> *We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a 'sender pays'
> arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it. Everywhere it is
> recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net neutrality cannot
> survive with regulatory intervention, or at least some kind of normative
> soft pressure from regulatory quarters. So if there is an issue called
> 'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then there is perhaps some
> role for a global regulatory system - if not of enforceable rules, at least
> for providing normative frameworks and general principles. And net
> neutrality concerns the transport layer, net neutrality concerns can be
> accommodated even while we do the above mentioned 'definitional
> separations' about what part of the Internet is telecom and which not.
>
>  While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for reasons one
> can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US is the sender pays
> principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some way to promote a
> normative framework for net neutrality or an open Internet - or even more
> specific things like open peering and the such.
>
> I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS term which can
> become the normative indication for violation of net neutrality and it
> should be opposed.
>
> *5. Some sundry issues
>
> *Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may require
> separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One, whether ITRs
> should stay as general principles or they should become mandatory. These is
> alternative language in the current draft on these option. I think we
> should seek that ITRs stay as general principles. Second, if the
> principal parties that are subject to ITRs should remain 'administrations'
> or be changed to 'member states and operating agencies'. I think the
> telecom environment has become complex and diverse enough to require the
> more flexible term 'operating agencies' to be included.
>
> Thanks, and look forward to listen to other people's views on this.
>
> parminder
>
>  On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
>  Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.
>
>  A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on possible ways to
> boot up this process.  One option considered was to have some of the folks
> that most closely follow the issues around the two statements get started
> with some drafting of bits for collective consideration, but we ultimately
> decided this was a bad idea.  With a diverse group, some of whom may not
> have worked together before, it seemed better to move in a completely
> inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so that anyone who wants to
> follow or weigh in can do so at the most formative stages.  Setting up
> these lists seemed a good way to get that started, and we might want to try
> pushing as far as we can before meeting so the F2F bit is less stressed.
>  So let's see what we can do?
>
>  I guess the first and foundational question is what style of letter with
> what principal focus.  I've stated my views previously,
>
>
>  On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>
> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to the
> ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is much
> more doable.
>
>
> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement.
>  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the process,
> e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, watershed, historic
> (quoting the press office) release of a document that had already been
> leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was
> news.  And more generally, those statements made senior staff who'd
> previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering among the riff
> raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive perception management
> gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling
> critics that their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
>
>  What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more focused
> on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the conference chair
> declare some sessions open to the public.  One imagines there will be push
> back from the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case.
>  Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that could be
> problematic for the Internet and offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally,
> these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may have real
> legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of overreach and that
> there are other, more effective ways to deal with them than via a
> multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and
> content.  If we do that, at least some delegations might have a look before
> tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and
> that would establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar
> messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main session
> in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>
>
>
>  So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up the main
> topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and each prepare a
> tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point conclusions,
> that sort of a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the
> proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is overreaching and likely to
> have unforeseen negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go
> about addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred language.  Maybe not
> in that order, but you see what I mean.  Aggregation of and editing for
> consistent style a bunch of such mini-statements would be fairly easy to do
> in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau and closing, and voila, we'd have
> the sort of input document delegates are used to reading, and perhaps one
> that wouldn't head straight to the circular file.
>
>  Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make references to
> civil society thinks this or feels that.  Many delegates read that as
> "fifth column for Western domination thinks this or feels that."  They know
> who we are, basically.  Let's not stand around calling attention to it, and
> just stick to the issues at hand.
>
>  At least, that's what I'd do.
>
>  Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start in on?
>
>  Best,
>
>  Bill
>
>
>
>
>  On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
> Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in another
> thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to some of the
> existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many of you are
> familiar with already!), including:
>
> https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
> https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet
> http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/
>
> In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns, CDT has
> identified several categories of proposals that both raise human rights
> concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at WCIT.  I've
> included some discussion and text of proposals below, and would be very
> curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific issues raise concerns.
>
> Best,
> Emma
>
> 1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a new
> provision that would give states the right to know where traffic has been
> routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for security and fraud
> purposes.  If this provision is applied to regulate the route of Internet
> traffic, it would require technical changes to the Internet that would give
> governments additional tools to block traffic to and from certain websites
> or countries.  Regulations on routing could also enable greater tracking of
> users by their IP addresses. This provision is put forward in the name of
> security and fraud, but their necessity, proportionality, and impact on the
> right to privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully assessed.
>
> Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have proposed that "A
> Member State shall have the right to know through where its traffic has
> been routed, and should have the right to impose any routing regulations in
> this regard, for purposes of security and countering fraud." A similar
> proposal has been made by the Regional Commonwealth group of states (RCC)
> and is also supported by Russia.
>
> 2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of telecommunications -
> Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
> states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member States to
> ensure access and use of international telecommunications services, but
> allows an exception for when telecommunications is used "for the purpose of
> interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty,
> national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other States,
> or to divulge information of a sensitive nature."  The Internet has become
> an essential tool for the exercise of a range of human rights.  This
> proposal is inconsistent with human rights standards that articulate when
> governments may permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression under
> Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR.  This proposal could be
> used to legitimize
> restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of expression,
> association, and assembly.
>
> 3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European Telecommunications
> Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
> Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how networks on the
> Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a "sending party
> pays" system, where content providers would have to pay fees to reach the
> user who wants to access that content.  Some civil society organizations
> believe this system would result in increased costs of Internet access for
> users, especially in less developed countries, since the fees companies pay
> would be then passed on to users.  The ETNO proposal also encourages ISPs
> to make special deals with content companies to prioritize their content,
> which undermines net neutrality online.  Taken together, the effect of the
> ETNO  proposal would be to increase the cost of Internet access and limit
> equal access to information online.  Again, the full impact of the ETNO
> proposal on Internet access and the ability of individuals to seek and
> receive information online must be fully assessed.
>
>
> --
> Emma J. Llansó
> Policy Counsel
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>
>
> On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two output
> documents, which a core of interested participants could join to come up
> with some zero-draft text as a starting point for discussions in Baku.
>
> As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested we
> bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am starting
> two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm beginning with the
> ITU statement.
>
> I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not compared to
> some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text.  But in general
> terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and unified civil
> society position to which most of us subscribe, not only pushing back
> against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its deficits with respect
> to the WSIS process criteria (openness, multi-stakeholderism, etc), but
> being quite specific about the issues on the table for WCIT.  What issues
> do we already know are the key ones for our members or constituents?
>
> So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more
> progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121026/6e5a0ad1/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Oct 26 14:30:58 2012
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:00:58 +0530
Subject: ITU statement thread
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA9UOU7a4bP+mgfDZ4ejDOvpNBqzJZfes4KbiYf2vG5quA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <508A836F.50201@itforchange.net>
	<1E8224A3-3A5C-4EE7-BB98-2ED59D733D90@uzh.ch>
	<CA+4KnA9UOU7a4bP+mgfDZ4ejDOvpNBqzJZfes4KbiYf2vG5quA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHC6q_E9j+Zxq9690x77_+ckqJa8sVyCBL99Ao4dNHQajg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I like Gene's proposal about identifying key concerns in a clear manner,
provided we add to each point a reference to all the sections in the ITRs
that are relevant to that particular point. There are already quite a few
documents around that convey general concerns. If we want governments to
pay attention to our recommendations at this late point in time, I think it
is crucial that we guide them as precisely as possible to all the sections
that we believe either deserve support or need to be thrown out.

Regards content, my own concerns mirror Parminder's points 1-4, but I feel
discomfort about the suggestion to include "operating agencies". What
exactly is it that we would gain by including them here also (rather than
only in national legislation); what would we lose by not doing so?

Thanks and best,
Anja



On 26 October 2012 21:16, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> For the purpose of maximizing the likelihood of support from many
> participants, I suggest a SHORT narrative that identifies key concerns
> (which could capture what might otherwise be done article by article),
> which is both respectful of the proposals but also clear about concerns.
> And for the most important civil society concerns which the ITU
> cannot/should not seek to address, we may want to highlight the need for
> member states to commit to taking these up in a timely manner in the most
> appropriate jurisdictions (including multistakeholder processes).
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:33 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks Parminder for the detailed response, very helpful.  We can plunge
>> into debating the details of these and other points, but shouldn't we first
>> try to agree on the basic architecture?  Some options might include
>>
>> 1.  A narrative treatment of priority issues, per the below (one
>> risk—could get long winded, and the more detailed we are, the greater the
>> scope for disagreement amongst us on particulars)
>>
>> 2.  An article by article concise statement of positions, like 1-2 para
>> each, maybe bullets
>>
>> 3.  A CS Proposal for the Work of the Conference, i.e. in the form of an
>> ITR edit?
>>
>> 4.  An ITR edit with like one para parenthetical explanations
>>
>> 5.  Something else…
>>
>> I suspect 3 or 4 might elicit giggles in the tower and perhaps elsewhere,
>> if we care…
>>
>> At present I think I tend toward the 2nd option, sticking close to
>> positions rather than getting too much into analytical reconstructions of
>> each issue-area, and per previous
>>
>>  a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the proposals, b) says
>> why the proposed solution is overreaching and likely to have unforeseen
>> negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go about addressing the
>> problem, and d) offers preferred language.
>>
>>
>> or maybe the sensibility behind that could just be stated once in a
>> chapeau...  In any event, I hope we can avoid a tone that sounds overly
>> righteous and finger wagging in order to avoid playing into the caricatures
>> that have been deployed to delegitimize criticisms etc.
>>
>> Just my two cents, let's hear from others and see if we can start leaning
>> toward a shared framework.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> *Date: *October 26, 2012 2:34:55 PM GMT+02:00
>> *To: *bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
>> *Subject: **Re: ITU statement thread*
>>
>>  Hi Bill/ All
>>
>> Thanks for flagging off this discussion. A bit busy right now, but will
>> put forward some ideas from my emerging, and yet tentative, views on the
>> current draft of ITRs, which I will have to go through again in a properly
>> through manner.
>>
>> I see four sets of issues that are most important, and they are as
>> follows:
>>
>> *1. State control over Internet routing system*
>>
>> This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR debate,
>> even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is rightly feared
>> that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries like China and Iran to
>> develop strict state control over the routing of Internet traffic which
>> today is globally ordered to a large extent. Earlier inputs of these
>> countries into the ITR draft were rather more explicit in this regard. Even
>> though rendered relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there is
>> significant text still there that can be used for a tightly controlled
>> Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can lead to
>> nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.
>>
>> In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30 which deals
>> with this issue. Options range from 'states right to know which routes are
>> used', to 'states determining which routes are used', to 'imposing any
>> routing regulation in this regard'. My proposal is to go with one of the
>> listed options which is to suppress section 30 altogether; so, no language
>> on this issue at all.
>>
>> *2. ITU and CIRs management*
>>
>> One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to, and vide
>> the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed by the
>> distributed CIR management system as it exists at present.  In the current
>> draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this regard of ITU's feared
>> encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus system . The options in the
>> current draft regarding this section range from 'naming, numbering,
>> addressing and identification resources will not be mis-used' and 'assigned
>> resources would only be used for the agreed purposes' to 'all ITU
>> recommendations will apply to naming, numbering, addressing and
>> identification resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation states,
>> if they elect to, can control these resources within their territories for
>> the sake of international communication'.
>>
>> If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to names and
>> numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping encroachment on ICANN's
>> remit. One option in the current draft lists a set of specific ITU
>> recommendations that will apply (these need to be studied individually
>> which I havent). Other options are more open ended, which means future ITU
>> recommendations may also apply, which, may mean that ITU can formally enter
>> into doing and/or supervising ICANN's work. This becomes more problematic
>> when seen along with draft options that make ITRs obligatory and not
>> just a set of general principles. We should speak up against all such
>> efforts to take over, or even substantially affect, the current distributed
>> system of CIRs management.
>>
>> *3. Definitional issues in the ITRs, telecom or Internet*
>>
>> Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The issue is
>> really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus under ITRs and ITU
>> has its problems and a completely new kind of global regulatory system may
>> then be built over it, which would hurt the way Internet has developed and
>> needs to develop. However, it is also difficult to just argue that, when we
>> are in times we are in, Internet traffic will be excluded from telecom
>> definition, because that would beg the question - what then remains of
>> telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based convergence. Is then ITU
>> to close down as traditional telephony disappears. Perhaps more
>> importantly, correspondingly, does this new definitional approach also mean
>> that national level telecom regulatory systems like FCC and TRAI wind up
>> sooner or later.
>>
>> I dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts seeking
>> complete deregulation of the entire communications systems that, for
>> instance,  are at present being made in the US, which employ definitional
>> logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying Internet not as a
>> telecommunication but as an information service and thus not subject to
>> common carriage or net neutrality provisions, and similarly rescuing VoIP
>> services from universal service obligations.) At the same time, it is
>> necessary to resist providing constitutional basis to the ITU which can be
>> used to for control of content and application layers. This is the dilemma.
>> What would the implications of putting Internet under telecommunications in
>> the definitional and other sections? What does adding 'processing' signals
>> to just sending, transporting and receiving  signals does to what happens
>> in the future vis a vis ITU's role? (These are all existing optional
>> language in the current draft.)
>>
>> This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time on. My
>> tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the transport /
>> infrastructural layer is included in the definition of telecommunication
>> (which also is closest to reality) and thus in ITR's remit. At the same
>> time content and application layers are explicitly excluded. Contributing
>> the right language in this respect may be one of the most important things
>> that we can do. But as I said, this requires a lot of thinking and
>> discussion among us.
>>
>> In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of 'security'
>> would become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may be an issue we may
>> have to separately treat in our submission, becuase there is also a lot of
>> tricky language in the current draft around this issue.
>>
>> *4. Net neutrality or an open Internet
>>
>> *We would certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a 'sender pays'
>> arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it. Everywhere it is
>> recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net neutrality cannot
>> survive with regulatory intervention, or at least some kind of normative
>> soft pressure from regulatory quarters. So if there is an issue called
>> 'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then there is perhaps some
>> role for a global regulatory system - if not of enforceable rules, at least
>> for providing normative frameworks and general principles. And net
>> neutrality concerns the transport layer, net neutrality concerns can be
>> accommodated even while we do the above mentioned 'definitional
>> separations' about what part of the Internet is telecom and which not.
>>
>>  While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for reasons one
>> can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US is the sender pays
>> principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some way to promote a
>> normative framework for net neutrality or an open Internet - or even more
>> specific things like open peering and the such.
>>
>> I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS term which
>> can become the normative indication for violation of net neutrality and it
>> should be opposed.
>>
>> *5. Some sundry issues
>>
>> *Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may require
>> separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One, whether ITRs
>> should stay as general principles or they should become mandatory. These is
>> alternative language in the current draft on these option. I think we
>> should seek that ITRs stay as general principles. Second, if the
>> principal parties that are subject to ITRs should remain 'administrations'
>> or be changed to 'member states and operating agencies'. I think the
>> telecom environment has become complex and diverse enough to require the
>> more flexible term 'operating agencies' to be included.
>>
>> Thanks, and look forward to listen to other people's views on this.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>  On Thursday 25 October 2012 07:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>>  Thanks for getting us started, Emma, very helpful.
>>
>>  A couple weeks ago Jeremy and I were going around on possible ways to
>> boot up this process.  One option considered was to have some of the folks
>> that most closely follow the issues around the two statements get started
>> with some drafting of bits for collective consideration, but we ultimately
>> decided this was a bad idea.  With a diverse group, some of whom may not
>> have worked together before, it seemed better to move in a completely
>> inclusive bottom up way from the beginning so that anyone who wants to
>> follow or weigh in can do so at the most formative stages.  Setting up
>> these lists seemed a good way to get that started, and we might want to try
>> pushing as far as we can before meeting so the F2F bit is less stressed.
>>  So let's see what we can do?
>>
>>  I guess the first and foundational question is what style of letter
>> with what principal focus.  I've stated my views previously,
>>
>>
>>  On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, if we just want to give a list of preachments to the
>> ITU on how should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is much
>> more doable.
>>
>>
>> I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT statement.
>>  Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful earlier in the process,
>> e.g. by pressing governments to agree to the landmark, watershed, historic
>> (quoting the press office) release of a document that had already been
>> leaked and widely accessed.  If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was
>> news.  And more generally, those statements made senior staff who'd
>> previously declared they'd be unaffected by any muttering among the riff
>> raff launch an unprecedented counter-offensive perception management
>> gambit, complete with a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling
>> critics that their concerns are all myths.  So all good.
>>
>>  What's needed now though is something different—less meta, more focused
>> on specific aspects of Dubai.  There's a proposal that the conference chair
>> declare some sessions open to the public.  One imagines there will be push
>> back from the usual suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case.
>>  Beyond this, I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that could be
>> problematic for the Internet and offer substantive counterpoints.  Ideally,
>> these should acknowledge that in some cases governments may have real
>> legitimate concerns, but point out the downsides of overreach and that
>> there are other, more effective ways to deal with them than via a
>> multilateral treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and
>> content.  If we do that, at least some delegations might have a look before
>> tossing the responses to the ITU's public comment call into the trash, and
>> that would establish another reference point for delegates carrying similar
>> messages.  BTW, such a statement could also feed into the CIR main session
>> in Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>  So my pref would be that as a starting point, we divide up the main
>> topics/bad proposals potentially impacting the Internet and each prepare a
>> tight paragraph or two response, perhaps with bullet point conclusions,
>> that sort of a) respectfully acknowledges the concerns behind the
>> proposals, b) says why the proposed solution is overreaching and likely to
>> have unforeseen negative consequences, c) indicates a better way to go
>> about addressing the problem, and d) offers preferred language.  Maybe not
>> in that order, but you see what I mean.  Aggregation of and editing for
>> consistent style a bunch of such mini-statements would be fairly easy to do
>> in Baku, then we'd just need a chapeau and closing, and voila, we'd have
>> the sort of input document delegates are used to reading, and perhaps one
>> that wouldn't head straight to the circular file.
>>
>>  Speaking of circular files: I would not in the text make references to
>> civil society thinks this or feels that.  Many delegates read that as
>> "fifth column for Western domination thinks this or feels that."  They know
>> who we are, basically.  Let's not stand around calling attention to it, and
>> just stick to the issues at hand.
>>
>>  At least, that's what I'd do.
>>
>>  Does anyone have a different preferred plan we could start in on?
>>
>>  Best,
>>
>>  Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>
>>  Hi all,
>>
>> Apologies if I've missed discussion about this statement in another
>> thread, but I thought it might be helpful to provide links to some of the
>> existing civil society statements about the WCIT (which many of you are
>> familiar with already!), including:
>>
>> https://www.cdt.org/letter-for-civil-society-involvement-in-WCIT
>>
>> https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet
>> http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/statement/
>>
>> In terms of specific proposals that raise significant concerns, CDT has
>> identified several categories of proposals that both raise human rights
>> concerns and seem likely to be the subject of much debate at WCIT.  I've
>> included some discussion and text of proposals below, and would be very
>> curious to hear others' thoughts about what specific issues raise concerns.
>>
>> Best,
>> Emma
>>
>> 1) Regulation of traffic routing - Some states have proposed a new
>> provision that would give states the right to know where traffic has been
>> routed, and the right to regulate routing of traffic for security and fraud
>> purposes.  If this provision is applied to regulate the route of Internet
>> traffic, it would require technical changes to the Internet that would give
>> governments additional tools to block traffic to and from certain websites
>> or countries.  Regulations on routing could also enable greater tracking of
>> users by their IP addresses. This provision is put forward in the name of
>> security and fraud, but their necessity, proportionality, and impact on the
>> right to privacy and freedom of expression has not been fully assessed.
>>
>> Exact text: Egypt and the Arab States regional group have proposed that
>> "A Member State shall have the right to know through where its traffic has
>> been routed, and should have the right to impose any routing regulations in
>> this regard, for purposes of security and countering fraud." A similar
>> proposal has been made by the Regional Commonwealth group of states (RCC)
>> and is also supported by Russia.
>>
>> 2) Allowable limitations on public access and use of telecommunications -
>> Russia and the Regional Commonwealth group of
>> states (RCC) have put forward a proposal that requires Member States to
>> ensure access and use of international telecommunications services, but
>> allows an exception for when telecommunications is used "for the purpose of
>> interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty,
>> national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other States,
>> or to divulge information of a sensitive nature."  The Internet has become
>> an essential tool for the exercise of a range of human rights.  This
>> proposal is inconsistent with human rights standards that articulate when
>> governments may permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression under
>> Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR.  This proposal could be
>> used to legitimize
>> restrictions on a range of human rights, including freedom of expression,
>> association, and assembly.
>>
>> 3) Internet access and net neutrality - The European Telecommunications
>> Network Operators Association (ETNO), a Sector
>> Member at the ITU, has proposed a series of changes to how networks on
>> the Internet connect to each other. For example, ETNO proposes a "sending
>> party pays" system, where content providers would have to pay fees to reach
>> the user who wants to access that content.  Some civil society
>> organizations believe this system would result in increased costs of
>> Internet access for users, especially in less developed countries, since
>> the fees companies pay would be then passed on to users.  The ETNO proposal
>> also encourages ISPs to make special deals with content companies to
>> prioritize their content, which undermines net neutrality online.  Taken
>> together, the effect of the ETNO  proposal would be to increase the cost of
>> Internet access and limit equal access to information online.  Again, the
>> full impact of the ETNO proposal on Internet access and the ability of
>> individuals to seek and receive information online must be fully assessed.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Emma J. Llansó
>> Policy Counsel
>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>> Washington, DC 20006
>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/2012 6:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> The original plan was to have two small drafting groups for our two
>> output documents, which a core of interested participants could join to
>> come up with some zero-draft text as a starting point for discussions in
>> Baku.
>>
>> As things haven't worked out that way so far, it has been suggested we
>> bring the discussion back onto the main list.  To that end, I am starting
>> two threads, for discussion of the two statements.  I'm beginning with the
>> ITU statement.
>>
>> I do not consider myself an expert on the ITU (certainly not compared to
>> some of you), so I am not going to propose any actual text.  But in general
>> terms, it is hoped that the statement would by a strong and unified civil
>> society position to which most of us subscribe, not only pushing back
>> against the ITU's mission creep and pointing out its deficits with respect
>> to the WSIS process criteria (openness, multi-stakeholderism, etc), but
>> being quite specific about the issues on the table for WCIT.  What issues
>> do we already know are the key ones for our members or constituents?
>>
>> So, please use this thread to discuss ideas, and once they are more
>> progressed, some draft text could go into a (currently empty) pad at
>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ITU.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Policy Officer
>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>> Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
>> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
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/bestbits/attachments/20121027/ba6d52f9/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Oct 27 21:45:27 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:45:27 +0800
Subject: Internet governance principles thread
In-Reply-To: <5084EF6B.8010108@ciroap.org>
References: <506AC5AA.3070504@ciroap.org> <5084EF6B.8010108@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <A5043C6C-F1D3-4894-A026-4C712C693AED@ciroap.org>

On 22/10/2012, at 3:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 02/10/12 18:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> This is a counterpart to the previous thread, for ideas about what should go into the Internet governance principles statement for the IGF that we develop at Best Bits.  Whilst we will be working on this face-to-face, it is sensible not to cram our work into one session when preparatory work can be done online.
> 
> In previous discussions here, nobody has disagreed that we should begin from an existing document in developing our statement of     Internet governance principles.  However differences of opinion have been expressed over what would be the most suitable document to use.
> 
> Here is a survey which I would encourage you to take, which I presents four of the most obvious choices, and asks you to rank them according to your preference:
> 
> http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=78947&lang=en
> 
> Please take a few minutes to take the above survey, and I'll present the options back here in one week.


We still only have 5 responses to this... so if you haven't responded, please follow the link above and provide your preferred ranking for the Internet principles statements that we could use as a basis for our work next week.

Thanks.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121028/5b760f24/attachment.htm>

From amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se  Sun Oct 28 06:54:48 2012
From: amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se (Amelia Andersdotter)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:54:48 +0100
Subject: RMXRe: Participants list on the Best Bits website
In-Reply-To: <7D159C68-6AF6-4D2B-BA53-2F439A6243D8@ciroap.org>
References: <7D159C68-6AF6-4D2B-BA53-2F439A6243D8@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <508D0EF8.1000708@piratpartiet.se>

In the end, I was not able to make it because we have votes in Brussels 
on Nov 5 :-(

Have fun and good luck anyway!

On 26.10.2012 16:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Everyone who is attending, and who didn't already have an account on 
> the Best Bits website, will have just received an automatic email with 
> a username and password for the site.  DON'T PANIC!  You don't need to 
> do anything new.  This email is just for your information, and is the 
> same email that new people registering will receive from now on.
>
> It was necessary to create accounts for everyone on the website in 
> order to display a dynamic list of participants, including those who 
> register to participate remotely.  (It's a public holiday in Malaysia 
> today so I was able to drop everything and get this done.)
>
> You can view the list at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/participants/ 
> - if you log in, you will see email addresses; if you don't, you 
> won't.  You can edit your own data to determine what will appear here 
> - please follow the instructions in the individual email that you 
> received.
>
> So, in summary:
>
> 1. Don't panic, you don't need to do anything new to confirm that you 
> are participating.
> 2. If you want to, please log in and edit the data that other 
> participants will see about you.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* 
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121028/d7667c82/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Sun Oct 28 14:46:09 2012
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:46:09 +0200
Subject: Internet governance principles thread
In-Reply-To: <A5043C6C-F1D3-4894-A026-4C712C693AED@ciroap.org>
References: <506AC5AA.3070504@ciroap.org> <5084EF6B.8010108@ciroap.org> <A5043C6C-F1D3-4894-A026-4C712C693AED@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <508D7D71.9040205@apc.org>

Dear Jeremy

I had a look at the survey.. and.. well.. I did not really find the
differences between the options that clear...and I also could not quite
relate them back to the discussion thread on the list. But I have been
busy and have not been able to follow the thread as carefully as I would
have liked to.

Best

Anriette


On 28/10/2012 03:45, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 22/10/2012, at 3:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/10/12 18:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> This is a counterpart to the previous thread, for ideas about what should go into the Internet governance principles statement for the IGF that we develop at Best Bits.  Whilst we will be working on this face-to-face, it is sensible not to cram our work into one session when preparatory work can be done online.
>>
>> In previous discussions here, nobody has disagreed that we should begin from an existing document in developing our statement of     Internet governance principles.  However differences of opinion have been expressed over what would be the most suitable document to use.
>>
>> Here is a survey which I would encourage you to take, which I presents four of the most obvious choices, and asks you to rank them according to your preference:
>>
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=78947&lang=en
>>
>> Please take a few minutes to take the above survey, and I'll present the options back here in one week.
> 
> 
> We still only have 5 responses to this... so if you haven't responded, please follow the link above and provide your preferred ranking for the Internet principles statements that we could use as a basis for our work next week.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Sun Oct 28 15:40:10 2012
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:40:10 +0100
Subject: Internet governance principles thread
In-Reply-To: <508D7D71.9040205@apc.org>
References: <506AC5AA.3070504@ciroap.org> <5084EF6B.8010108@ciroap.org> <A5043C6C-F1D3-4894-A026-4C712C693AED@ciroap.org> <508D7D71.9040205@apc.org>
Message-ID: <2292F480-6898-4D7F-8AE4-DBAA148702AC@uzh.ch>

There is significant overlap among these schematic statements, which could be taken as a sign of an important emerging consensus on key points, and/or as sign that consensus is easy at a high level of generality…

One does wonder a little about the utility of the exercise if we end up saying things like openness is good, restrictions are bad…

Bill


On Oct 28, 2012, at 7:46 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Dear Jeremy
> 
> I had a look at the survey.. and.. well.. I did not really find the
> differences between the options that clear...and I also could not quite
> relate them back to the discussion thread on the list. But I have been
> busy and have not been able to follow the thread as carefully as I would
> have liked to.
> 
> Best
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 28/10/2012 03:45, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 22/10/2012, at 3:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 02/10/12 18:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> This is a counterpart to the previous thread, for ideas about what should go into the Internet governance principles statement for the IGF that we develop at Best Bits.  Whilst we will be working on this face-to-face, it is sensible not to cram our work into one session when preparatory work can be done online.
>>> 
>>> In previous discussions here, nobody has disagreed that we should begin from an existing document in developing our statement of     Internet governance principles.  However differences of opinion have been expressed over what would be the most suitable document to use.
>>> 
>>> Here is a survey which I would encourage you to take, which I presents four of the most obvious choices, and asks you to rank them according to your preference:
>>> 
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=78947&lang=en
>>> 
>>> Please take a few minutes to take the above survey, and I'll present the options back here in one week.
>> 
>> 
>> We still only have 5 responses to this... so if you haven't responded, please follow the link above and provide your preferred ranking for the Internet principles statements that we could use as a basis for our work next week.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> 



From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Mon Oct 29 07:53:34 2012
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:53:34 -0400
Subject: Internet governance principles thread
In-Reply-To: <2292F480-6898-4D7F-8AE4-DBAA148702AC@uzh.ch>
References: <506AC5AA.3070504@ciroap.org> <5084EF6B.8010108@ciroap.org> <A5043C6C-F1D3-4894-A026-4C712C693AED@ciroap.org> <508D7D71.9040205@apc.org> <2292F480-6898-4D7F-8AE4-DBAA148702AC@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <83156CBC-99DF-41EC-9A07-2C828CE6D051@gmail.com>


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct 30 04:53:03 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:53:03 +0800
Subject: Travel and logistics notes for Best Bits
Message-ID: <508F956F.4000805@ciroap.org>

For those travelling to Baku for Best Bits and the IGF, here are some
final important notes.

*Ground transport*

The IGF host country is arranging ground transport for those who have
emailed their full itineraries.  You should have received an email about
this from them.  If you didn't, you can try contacting
participant at igf2012.az about this.  Otherwise, if you are booked to stay
at the Days Hotel, they also offer a shuttle and you can email
nurana.salahova at dayshotelbaku.az to arrange your pickup.

*Reimbursements*

If you are being reimbursed in cash for a flight or hotel, Joe Power
from Global Partners has already contacted you to explain how this will
happen, or will do so soon.  We are already slightly over budget for
Best Bits, so please understand that we have no room to budge on the
costs that we may have agreed to reimburse you.  If you have enquiries,
please contact Joe (Joe at global-partners.co.uk) or myself.

*Hotel*

If you are staying at the Days Hotel and have been offered support for
your accommodation, then payment for the number of nights that we have
agreed with you will be made direct to the hotel, thereby reducing the
balance of your bill by two or three nights worth.  You will be solely
responsible for paying the balance.

Since some of your reservations were secured with a Consumers
International credit card, it is important - and I can't stress that
enough - that you pay the balance of the hotel bill yourself, otherwise
Consumers International will incur your room charges!  In the unlikely
event of a dispute over your room bill, please contact me immediately on
+60 12 282 5895.

*Distribution of papers*

We will not be distributing hard copies of the background papers that
were contributed for Best Bits and are collected at
http://bestbits.igf-online.net/background-papers/.  You are encouraged
to read them all online.  We may, however, distribute a one-page framing
document which references these papers.

If you would like everyone to have a hard copy of your paper, then
please bring your own 50 hard copies to Baku to distribute.  We will
also be happy to hand them out for you, if you give them to us in
advance (for example, Andrew and myself will be at breakfast at the Days
Hotel from 8am on Saturday).

*Participant list*

We have had to cap the number of attendees at 50, due to the
above-mentioned budget constraints.  If anyone of you listed as a
participant at http://bestbits.igf-online.net/participants/ no longer
plans to attend in person on both days, please let me know so that I can
tell one of those who is waiting in reserve.  Currently we have three on
the waiting list.

Thanks, and please let me know if you have any other last-minute queries
or concerns.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:*
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121030/9119bd44/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Oct  2 08:52:42 2012
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 20:52:42 +0800
Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <5CBD2118-9564-49C5-B009-467DBE5920CC@uzh.ch>
References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> <506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org> <5CBD2118-9564-49C5-B009-467DBE5920CC@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <96785171-7B35-4C56-8101-3E266D1FD7D9@ciroap.org>

On 02/10/2012, at 7:45 PM, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:

> *There's an asymmetry in the time devoted to the two statements.  Day 2 has two 1:45 hr and one 1 hr. sessions on principles, whereas Day has only two 1:45 hr sessions on WCIT.  I don't think the WCIT one will be easier and take less time, especially as we'll be making an intervention in a treaty negotiation where our views are really not all that welcome or valued.  So I think it ought to get the same amount of time as the principles effort.

Thankfully you and Norbert have, independently it seems, given much the same feedback.  So yes, let's move the EC session to the Sunday - good idea.  Check the pad again tomorrow - I'll hold off making the change until then just in case there is other feedback to integrate.

> *Again, I wonder about the need for panelists in the book ends.  We're going to be doing plenty of listening to panelists in Baku for five days already.  Canned presentations from/to people who've been talking to each other about all this stuff for years doesn't seem as value-adding to me as open group dialogue with a facilitator per session.

There wasn't, however, much support in the poll for eliminating panelists.  Whilst the IGF alumni have been talking to each other for years, there will be some new faces in Baku.  Maybe we could compromise by just setting some guidelines for panelists: say, don't use slides, and spend only 8 minutes in opening before going to the floor?

> By the way, one other request: would it be possible to know who all we are?  This could facilitate conversation and a group sensibility.  I tried logging into http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/bestbits with my caucus list ID but can't and so can't see who the 51 subscribers are…

This should now be possible.  Go to http://lists.igcaucus.org/review/bestbits and log in with your subscribed email address and, if you have logged in before, your password.  If you haven't, go to http://lists.igcaucus.org/firstpasswd/ first.  This will show you the list of subscribers.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/5fc231d1/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Oct 30 08:14:45 2012
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:14:45 +0100
Subject: Paul Budde blog on WCIT
Message-ID: <20121030131445.360dbfbf@quill.bollow.ch>

Dear all

Hear is a good blog post from Paul Budde which I highly recommend as
part of the preparatory reading for the Best Bits sessions on "ITU and
the International Telecommunications Regulations" and "Process towards
enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues".

http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/is-the-wcit-indeed-wicked/

Greetings,
Norbert


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Tue Oct 30 08:25:13 2012
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:25:13 +0100
Subject: Paul Budde blog on WCIT
In-Reply-To: <20121030131445.360dbfbf@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20121030131445.360dbfbf@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <18AD8780-7221-48D8-AB25-76A0B7EAA9B4@uzh.ch>

FWIW I watched Toure's speech and would offer diametrically opposed conclusions.

BD

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> Hear is a good blog post from Paul Budde which I highly recommend as
> part of the preparatory reading for the Best Bits sessions on "ITU and
> the International Telecommunications Regulations" and "Process towards
> enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues".
> 
> http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/is-the-wcit-indeed-wicked/
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 



From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Oct 30 09:05:24 2012
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:05:24 +0100
Subject: Paul Budde blog on WCIT
In-Reply-To: <18AD8780-7221-48D8-AB25-76A0B7EAA9B4@uzh.ch>
References: <20121030131445.360dbfbf@quill.bollow.ch>
	<18AD8780-7221-48D8-AB25-76A0B7EAA9B4@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <20121030140524.7b0b54bd@quill.bollow.ch>

William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> FWIW I watched Toure's speech and would offer diametrically opposed
> conclusions.

As I'm pretty sure all of us would, who approach the topic area
from a civil society perspective. I personally definitely see ITU's
strategy as seeking to grab as much power as possible, and I'm
definitely very uncomfortable about that happening unless some very
deep reforms of ITU happen first.

But IMO we absolutely need to understand the kind of perspective that is
comfortable with ITU's strategy, which Paul Budde expresses here, and
phrase our response to ITU's power grab strategy in a way that is
understandable and makes sense from the perspective of a viewpoint like
the one expressed in that blog post. Otherwise our words simply will
make no sense to the people who we must aim to reach with our message.

Greetings,
Norbert

> On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > Dear all
> > 
> > Hear is a good blog post from Paul Budde which I highly recommend as
> > part of the preparatory reading for the Best Bits sessions on "ITU
> > and the International Telecommunications Regulations" and "Process
> > towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues".
> > 
> > http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/is-the-wcit-indeed-wicked/
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> 



From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Oct 30 08:53:45 2012
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:53:45 +0100
Subject: AW: Paul Budde blog on WCIT
References: <20121030131445.360dbfbf@quill.bollow.ch>
 <18AD8780-7221-48D8-AB25-76A0B7EAA9B4@uzh.ch>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD54A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Bill 
 
can you be more specific? 
 
w

 
________________________________

Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch]
Gesendet: Di 30.10.2012 13:25
An: Norbert Bollow
Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: Re: Paul Budde blog on WCIT



FWIW I watched Toure's speech and would offer diametrically opposed conclusions.

BD

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Dear all
>
> Hear is a good blog post from Paul Budde which I highly recommend as
> part of the preparatory reading for the Best Bits sessions on "ITU and
> the International Telecommunications Regulations" and "Process towards
> enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues".
>
> http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/is-the-wcit-indeed-wicked/
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>






From william.drake at uzh.ch  Tue Oct 30 10:49:49 2012
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:49:49 +0100
Subject: AW: Paul Budde blog on WCIT
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD54A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20121030131445.360dbfbf@quill.bollow.ch> <18AD8780-7221-48D8-AB25-76A0B7EAA9B4@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD54A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <99B479C9-CF94-4CAF-B89A-FDF3646856B1@uzh.ch>

Hi

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> Hi Bill 
> 
> can you be more specific? 

Some quotes from the piece

In relation to the American situation, it is believed that after the American election there will be room for a more moderate stand on the issues, and that would help to form the basis for good outcomes at the WCIT.

Indeed the ITU is making itself more transparent and the whole debate about the ITRs is a good example that this seems to work. Also each member state (government) can bring its own delegation to the ITU and to WCIT, and can participate. So the broader internet community can lobby their government to include representatives from them in these delegations.

The Secretary-General most certainly reached out to everybody, and he wants to see WCIT representing all the stakeholders involved




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121030/17e5dadb/attachment.htm>

From farooq at ciroap.org  Tue Oct 30 11:30:31 2012
From: farooq at ciroap.org (Farooq Ahmed Jam)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:30:31 +0500
Subject: AW: Paul Budde blog on WCIT
In-Reply-To: <99B479C9-CF94-4CAF-B89A-FDF3646856B1@uzh.ch>
References: <20121030131445.360dbfbf@quill.bollow.ch> <18AD8780-7221-48D8-AB25-76A0B7EAA9B4@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD54A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <99B479C9-CF94-4CAF-B89A-FDF3646856B1@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <508FF297.6050303@ciroap.org>

  Hi,
      This statement shows that WCIT and ITU is very transparent but 
the  fact remains there as _*No consumer representation at all*_. No 
invitation has been sent by ITU to _GLOBAL CONSUMER REPRESENTATIVE 
BODY_.  So as per my understanding transparency and representation are 
the major issues with ITU and WCIT.  The integration of efforts by CSO's 
for this transparency and representation is also on the agenda of Best 
Bits.   So this statement should not distract us from our targeted 
objectives.

Regards

Farooq


    On 10/30/2012 7:49 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill
>>
>> can you be more specific?
>
> Some quotes from the piece
>
> /In relation to the American situation, it is believed that after the 
> American election there will be room for a more moderate stand on the 
> issues, and that would help to form the basis for good outcomes at the 
> WCIT./
>
> /Indeed the ITU is making itself more transparent and the whole debate 
> about the ITRs is a good example that this seems to work. Also each 
> member state (government) can bring its own delegation to the ITU and 
> to WCIT, and can participate. So the broader internet community can 
> lobby their government to include representatives from them in these 
> delegations./
> /
> /
> /The Secretary-General most certainly reached out to everybody, and he 
> wants to see WCIT representing all the stakeholders involved/
>
>
>
>


-- 

*Farooq Ahmed Jam
Intern
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* 
http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice 
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121030/8e6b293d/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at UZH.CH  Tue Oct  2 10:46:17 2012
From: william.drake at UZH.CH (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:46:17 +0200
Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <96785171-7B35-4C56-8101-3E266D1FD7D9@ciroap.org>
References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> <506ABB0E.7010102@ciroap.org> <5CBD2118-9564-49C5-B009-467DBE5920CC@uzh.ch> <96785171-7B35-4C56-8101-3E266D1FD7D9@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <B772BBE4-3519-435E-8E62-740829FF4DC9@UZH.CH>

Hi again

On Oct 2, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 02/10/2012, at 7:45 PM, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:
> 
>> *There's an asymmetry in the time devoted to the two statements.  Day 2 has two 1:45 hr and one 1 hr. sessions on principles, whereas Day has only two 1:45 hr sessions on WCIT.  I don't think the WCIT one will be easier and take less time, especially as we'll be making an intervention in a treaty negotiation where our views are really not all that welcome or valued.  So I think it ought to get the same amount of time as the principles effort.
> 
> Thankfully you and Norbert have, independently it seems, given much the same feedback.  So yes, let's move the EC session to the Sunday - good idea.  Check the pad again tomorrow - I'll hold off making the change until then just in case there is other feedback to integrate.

Although I didn't quite take Norbert's point about the principles declaration not needing to be finished.  Again, we will be talking about principles in the Taking Stock main session.  We will be reviewing the various principles initiatives undertaken by IGOs etc. and linking these to the IGF and its future role. Trying to line up good government participants to draw their peers' attention.   I would have thought that a freshly produced statement from stakeholders would have provided a usefully complementary input, and way to bring the whole BB enterprise to wider attendees' attention.  Potentially booting on the principles declaration in order to have yet another EC discussion on top of the full day after plus the EuroComm thing seems an odd choice to me, but if that's what folks want to do, ok.

I should add that we will be talking about WCIT and the ITRs both in my workshop on Day 1 and the CIR Main Session on Day 2.  So in a parallel way, a BB statement could be input to those discussions.
> 
>> *Again, I wonder about the need for panelists in the book ends.  We're going to be doing plenty of listening to panelists in Baku for five days already.  Canned presentations from/to people who've been talking to each other about all this stuff for years doesn't seem as value-adding to me as open group dialogue with a facilitator per session.
> 
> There wasn't, however, much support in the poll for eliminating panelists.  Whilst the IGF alumni have been talking to each other for years, there will be some new faces in Baku.

Yes, just saw the subscriber list, would be good to hear from some non-usual suspects on all this :-)

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121002/f537e7fe/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Oct  2 11:24:41 2012
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:24:41 +0200
Subject: Requests for your assistance for Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <506AAA3B.3080708@ciroap.org>
References: <506AAA3B.3080708@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20121002172441.6e111b5c@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>   * Providing background papers for distribution to the participants
>     ahead of the meeting.  These are due to be provided to Andrew
>     Puddephatt by Friday 19 October at the latest.

I'd be willing to contribute a background paper for this session:

"""
Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues

  * If not the ITU, then what?        

  * The global vacuum on Internet-related public policy issues        

  * Likely scenarios (favourable or not) if the vacuum is not
    filled        

  * Discussion of reform proposals – Committee on Internet Related
    Policies, Enhanced Cooperation Task Force
"""

Greetings,
Norbert