From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Sat Nov  9 02:06:25 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for
 Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>

Norbert,

As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge the
divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global North.

With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as you
seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity of funding
decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, have to take all
the time and the tremendous care with which they face these difficult
questions. Whatever way these decisions go, those who make them so
carefully are quite aware of the fact that nobody is exempt from the taint
of money. In fact, the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear
someone self-funded a trip to an international meeting (which some seem to
see as the most "untainted" position) is: "how the hell are they able to do
that?!?!?". The salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector
don't quite allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the colour
of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we are situated
in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis of accepting any
particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite different.

While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
funding with people in this community (including in the steering committee)
and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if they take this
matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, everyone will be as
reflective about their own decisions and privilege as about others'. As a
consequence, these conversations are not framed around judgement, but
around compassion and support to question ourselves and push ourselves just
a little bit harder, equip ourselves to carry just a little bit more of
those costs. If I've ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in
my life, it is only because I have for long been blessed with the company
of friends who provided just that environment.

And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am prepared
to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should take it
forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this conversation in
line with the objectives of Best Bits.

I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have been
altered quite radically along these lines.

Thanks and best regards,
Anja



On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
> to the coordinators of the IGC
>
>
> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
> potentially highly problematic.
>
> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>
> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that
> could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests.
>
> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such
> as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear
> relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>
> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>
>
> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship,
> I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention
> of entering into any such funding relationships in the future.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
> > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
> > through the US State Department, see below:
> >
> >
> >
> >  Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals:
> > Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia
> > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
> >
> > November 8, 2013
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >  Department of State
> >
> > *Public Notice*
> >
> > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals:
> > *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia
> > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
> >
> > *SUMMARY*
> >
> > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
> > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
> > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule
> > of law in Europe and Eurasia.
> >
> > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
> > *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
> > *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
> > order to obtain a username and password to submit your application.
> > For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission
> > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at *
> > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
> > *
> >
> > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
> >
> > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
> > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
> > following issues:
> >
> > *Moldova*
> >
> > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):*
> > DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in
> > Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and
> > political conditions. This program should focus on one of three
> > areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals
> > should focus on more than one minority group and may include the
> > Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities.
> > Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they
> > will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than
> > one of the categories.
> >
> > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
> > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and
> > national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities
> > could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic
> > leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to
> > participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities
> > for participants to network with other minority leaders both within
> > Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting
> > training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights
> > and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills.
> >
> > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
> > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova.
> > The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance,
> > and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth
> > activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise
> > awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals
> > should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint
> > activities.
> >
> > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
> > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
> > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps,
> > internship opportunities, or language training. The program should
> > focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational
> > opportunities and outcomes.
> >
> > *Turkey*
> >
> > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
> > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil
> > society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’
> > awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the
> > political process. The program should support civil society in
> > advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and
> > protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their
> > right to participate in the political process. The program should
> > build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring
> > together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized
> > groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and
> > government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of
> > civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these
> > coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on
> > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government
> > accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals
> > should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to
> > help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for
> > political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
> > strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in
> > Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society
> > groups.
> >
> > *Azerbaijan*
> >
> > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
> > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
> > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
> > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will
> > encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote
> > an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system
> > of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil
> > society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting
> > civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach.
> > Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote
> > democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of
> > independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could
> > include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the
> > capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in
> > key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy;
> > support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive
> > debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations;
> > linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability
> > and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
> > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants
> > to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots
> > organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or
> > fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful
> > proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong
> > knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an
> > established ability to work with regional independent civil society.
> >
> > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
> >
> > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions
> > (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
> > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
> > .
> >
> > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
> > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
> > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
> >
> > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
> > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section
> > up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to
> > use the given space effectively.
> >
> > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per
> > country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or
> > themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request
> > less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling
> > ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.*
> >
> > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
> > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov*
> > <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov*
> > <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
> > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
> > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
> > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission;
> > and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the
> > solicitation and this document.
> >
> > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals
> > have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov*
> > <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov*
> > <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
> > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
> > conversion processes.*
> >
> > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of
> > State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing
> > proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed.
> >
> > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
> > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov*
> > <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
> >
> > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
> >
> > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
> > organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships,
> > will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic,
> > research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed
> > competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science-
> > related projects unless they have an explicit component related to
> > the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on
> > commercial law or economic development will be rated as
> > non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost
> > sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and
> > budget narrative.
> >
> > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for
> > any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist
> > organization, whether or not elected members of government.
> >
> > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
> > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
> > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
> > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
> > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
> > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance
> > with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
> >
> > This request for proposals will appear on
> > *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
> > *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s website,
> > *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
> >
> > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
> >
> > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel
> > free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov*
> > <SpitzerEM at State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State Department
> > officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas -
> > may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire
> > proposal review process is completed.
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> >
> > Stay connected with the State Department:
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131109/2ded3a2c/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Nov  9 03:11:07 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 09:11:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>

I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
a wall and shooting them".

Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
government?

I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
Bali.

However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.

Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.

There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
does not want to be an accomplice through silence.

Greetings,
Norbert


Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>:

> Norbert,
> 
> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
> North.
> 
> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
> different.
> 
> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
> funding with people in this community (including in the steering
> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
> who provided just that environment.
> 
> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
> 
> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
> been altered quite radically along these lines.
> 
> Thanks and best regards,
> Anja
> 
> 
> 
> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
> > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
> > to the coordinators of the IGC
> >
> >
> > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
> > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
> > potentially highly problematic.
> >
> > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
> > least, shaping and directing that capacity.
> >
> > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
> > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
> > that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
> > interests.
> >
> > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
> > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
> > such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
> > clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
> >
> > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
> > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
> > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
> > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
> > where a US government agency is among the funders.
> >
> >
> > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
> > relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
> > have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
> > in the future.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> >
> > Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear All,
> > >
> > > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
> > > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
> > > through the US State Department, see below:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
> > > Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
> > > Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
> > >
> > > November 8, 2013
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > >  Department of State
> > >
> > > *Public Notice*
> > >
> > > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
> > > Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
> > > and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
> > >
> > > *SUMMARY*
> > >
> > > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
> > > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
> > > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
> > > rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
> > >
> > > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
> > > *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
> > > *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
> > > order to obtain a username and password to submit your
> > > application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal
> > > Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
> > > available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
> > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
> > > *
> > >
> > > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
> > >
> > > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
> > > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
> > > following issues:
> > >
> > > *Moldova*
> > >
> > > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
> > > available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
> > > minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
> > > economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
> > > one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
> > > Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
> > > and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
> > > other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
> > > three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
> > > which address more than one of the categories.
> > >
> > > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
> > > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
> > > and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
> > > Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
> > > minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
> > > political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
> > > process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
> > > other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
> > > civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
> > > and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
> > > organizational management, or communication skills.
> > >
> > > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
> > > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
> > > Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
> > > tolerance, and understanding through components such as
> > > inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
> > > program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
> > > and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
> > > the majority group in joint activities.
> > >
> > > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
> > > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
> > > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
> > > camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
> > > program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
> > > of educational opportunities and outcomes.
> > >
> > > *Turkey*
> > >
> > > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
> > > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of
> > > civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
> > > citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and
> > > participate in the political process. The program should support
> > > civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
> > > the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
> > > educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
> > > process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
> > > society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
> > > including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
> > > respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
> > > Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
> > > in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
> > > educate their constituents and the general populace on
> > > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
> > > government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
> > > Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
> > > outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
> > > expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
> > > will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
> > > environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
> > > ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
> > >
> > > *Azerbaijan*
> > >
> > > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
> > > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
> > > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
> > > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
> > > will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
> > > promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
> > > democratic system of government. The program should also support
> > > the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
> > > advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
> > > increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
> > > practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
> > > law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
> > > NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
> > > technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
> > > human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
> > > effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
> > > encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
> > > citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
> > > activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
> > > fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
> > > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
> > > grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
> > > grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
> > > and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
> > > successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
> > > strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
> > > Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
> > > independent civil society.
> > >
> > > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
> > >
> > > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission
> > > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
> > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
> > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
> > > .
> > >
> > > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
> > > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
> > > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
> > >
> > > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
> > > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
> > > section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
> > > organizations to use the given space effectively.
> > >
> > > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
> > > per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
> > > and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
> > > that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
> > > the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
> > > ineligible.*
> > >
> > > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
> > > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov*
> > > <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov*
> > > <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
> > > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
> > > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
> > > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
> > > submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
> > > the solicitation and this document.
> > >
> > > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
> > > proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov*
> > > <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov*
> > > <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
> > > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
> > > conversion processes.*
> > >
> > > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
> > > Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
> > > discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
> > > process has been completed.
> > >
> > > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
> > > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov*
> > > <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
> > >
> > > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
> > >
> > > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
> > > organization or other sources, such as public-private
> > > partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
> > > strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
> > > be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
> > > technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
> > > explicit component related to the requested program objectives
> > > listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
> > > development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
> > > strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
> > > outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
> > >
> > > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
> > > for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
> > > terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
> > > government.
> > >
> > > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
> > > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
> > > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
> > > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
> > > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
> > > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
> > > accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
> > >
> > > This request for proposals will appear on
> > > *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
> > > *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
> > > website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
> > >
> > > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
> > >
> > > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
> > > feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov*
> > > <SpitzerEM at State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State
> > > Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
> > > embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
> > > applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
> > >
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Stay connected with the State Department:
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> 
> 
> 


From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Nov  9 03:20:02 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 09:20:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiDvfHvnLjPcfD7VpJOsWcSC26sTbMFEyFp2UGR4qKe5Mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiDvfHvnLjPcfD7VpJOsWcSC26sTbMFEyFp2UGR4qKe5Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20131109092002.7faffb42@quill>

Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would respectfully suggest to Norbert and others if we could agree
> to differ the dialogue to a later time as some topics can be left to
> a later stage to discuss whilst we sort oursleves out. What are your
> thoughts?

I'm willing to agree to deferring the issue, provided it is deferred to
some specific time rather than indefinitely. We can't defer this until
we are all comfortable with discussing the issue, since there will
never be a time when uncomfortable questions suddenly become
comfortable.

Greetings,
Norbert

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Nov  9 03:42:16 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:42:16 +0800
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST
 Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com> <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
Message-ID: <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>

I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how any conflicts of interest are managed.

Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German government agency.

This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a public list.

(Replying from my phone.)

-- 
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}'
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.



> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
> a wall and shooting them".
> 
> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
> government?
> 
> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
> Bali.
> 
> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.
> 
> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.
> 
> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
> does not want to be an accomplice through silence.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
> schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>:
> 
>> Norbert,
>> 
>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
>> North.
>> 
>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
>> different.
>> 
>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering
>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
>> who provided just that environment.
>> 
>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
>> 
>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
>> been altered quite radically along these lines.
>> 
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Anja
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
>>> to the coordinators of the IGC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
>>> potentially highly problematic.
>>> 
>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>>> 
>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
>>> interests.
>>> 
>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>>> 
>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
>>> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
>>> in the future.
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>>>> through the US State Department, see below:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>> 
>>>> November 8, 2013
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Department of State
>>>> 
>>>> *Public Notice*
>>>> 
>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>> 
>>>> *SUMMARY*
>>>> 
>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>>>> 
>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>>>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your
>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal
>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>>>> *
>>>> 
>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>>>> 
>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>>>> following issues:
>>>> 
>>>> *Moldova*
>>>> 
>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
>>>> which address more than one of the categories.
>>>> 
>>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
>>>> organizational management, or communication skills.
>>>> 
>>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as
>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
>>>> the majority group in joint activities.
>>>> 
>>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes.
>>>> 
>>>> *Turkey*
>>>> 
>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of
>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
>>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and
>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support
>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on
>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
>>>> 
>>>> *Azerbaijan*
>>>> 
>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support
>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
>>>> independent civil society.
>>>> 
>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>>>> 
>>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission
>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>>>> .
>>>> 
>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>>>> 
>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively.
>>>> 
>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
>>>> ineligible.*
>>>> 
>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
>>>> the solicitation and this document.
>>>> 
>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>>>> conversion processes.*
>>>> 
>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
>>>> process has been completed.
>>>> 
>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>>>> 
>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>>>> 
>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private
>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives
>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
>>>> 
>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
>>>> government.
>>>> 
>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>>>> 
>>>> This request for proposals will appear on
>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>>>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>>>> 
>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>>>> 
>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov*
>>>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State
>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Stay connected with the State Department:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131109/21eb93c4/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Sat Nov  9 08:02:15 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 13:02:15 +0000
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST
 Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
 <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
Message-ID: <09A224C2-EFD3-4F87-9569-A41F58E79925@global-partners.co.uk>

I'm joining this thread from hospital where my partner has just had a major operation - so this will be my only contribution.

I did not deflect any conversation in Bali. I made it clear that I was funded by the Ford Foundation but that I have no interest in others funding sources. Anyone could taken the issue further - including you Norbert - but no one did.

I'm prepared to operate on the basis of good faith in others intentions recognising that funding is very limited and very few organisations are willing to support civil society - DRL being one if the most generous,

Personally I'm not interested in imposing a requirement on people contingent on their funding.

I made the point in Bali that a more constructive approach would be to try and raise money to fund BB participation costs obviating these concerns. Maybe you'd like to help me with this Norbet?



Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Nov 2013, at 08:12, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
> a wall and shooting them".
>
> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
> government?
>
> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
> Bali.
>
> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.
>
> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.
>
> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
> does not want to be an accomplice through silence.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
> schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>:
>
>> Norbert,
>>
>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
>> North.
>>
>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
>> different.
>>
>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering
>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
>> who provided just that environment.
>>
>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
>>
>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
>> been altered quite radically along these lines.
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
>>> to the coordinators of the IGC
>>>
>>>
>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
>>> potentially highly problematic.
>>>
>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>>>
>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
>>> interests.
>>>
>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>>>
>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
>>> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>>>
>>>
>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
>>> in the future.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>>>> through the US State Department, see below:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>
>>>> November 8, 2013
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Department of State
>>>>
>>>> *Public Notice*
>>>>
>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>
>>>> *SUMMARY*
>>>>
>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>>>>
>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>>>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your
>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal
>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>>>>
>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>>>> following issues:
>>>>
>>>> *Moldova*
>>>>
>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
>>>> which address more than one of the categories.
>>>>
>>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
>>>> organizational management, or communication skills.
>>>>
>>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as
>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
>>>> the majority group in joint activities.
>>>>
>>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes.
>>>>
>>>> *Turkey*
>>>>
>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of
>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
>>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and
>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support
>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on
>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
>>>>
>>>> *Azerbaijan*
>>>>
>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support
>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
>>>> independent civil society.
>>>>
>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>>>>
>>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission
>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>>>>
>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively.
>>>>
>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
>>>> ineligible.*
>>>>
>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
>>>> the solicitation and this document.
>>>>
>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>>>> conversion processes.*
>>>>
>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
>>>> process has been completed.
>>>>
>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>>>>
>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>>>>
>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private
>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives
>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
>>>>
>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
>>>> government.
>>>>
>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>>>>
>>>> This request for proposals will appear on
>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>>>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>>>>
>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>>>>
>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov*
>>>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State
>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Stay connected with the State Department:
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Sat Nov  9 08:03:45 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 08:03:45 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgt71=OhbtuaSmd07ibA1CqW-V-UUYM3UT0PjFv0vm_yg@mail.gmail.com>

<cc list trimmed>

Can we please stop cross posting?

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
> to the coordinators of the IGC
>
>
> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
> potentially highly problematic.
>
> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>
> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that
> could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests.
>
> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such
> as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear
> relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>
> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>
>
> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship,
> I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention
> of entering into any such funding relationships in the future.


Do you get money from the Swiss government ?

--

Cheers,

McTim

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sat Nov  9 11:07:02 2013
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 01:07:02 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnKx_jvcU1Yfnr_fPYnOOuWTqfb-reLd7sGboUKyTG=Gg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I cannot speak for Anja but I may explain something, in many countries
,lets say not so democratic in the south, one of usual attacks from regimes
or way to dismiss activists and NGOs is to  accuse them to of getting
funding from foreign sources and being their puppets.

furthermore, like many mentioned previously, it is strange to focus  USA ,
what about others countries? isn't it inconsistent?

yes we need transparency and we can setup process for that : like statement
of any conflict of interests when running for elections or updating such
statement regularly.that is proof of good faith and trust.

finally, to be cynical I am more concerned these days by positions defended
by some from CS, positions I found damaging for us. And trust me they are
not taking any  funds from USG.

Rafik

Rafik Dammak
@rafik
"fight for the users"


2013/11/9 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>

> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
> a wall and shooting them".
>
> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
> government?
>
> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
> Bali.
>
> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.
>
> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.
>
> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
> does not want to be an accomplice through silence.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
> schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>:
>
> > Norbert,
> >
> > As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
> > the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
> > North.
> >
> > With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
> > unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
> > you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
> > of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
> > have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
> > face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
> > those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
> > nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
> > that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
> > international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
> > position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
> > salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
> > allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
> > decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
> > intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
> > colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
> > are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
> > of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
> > different.
> >
> > While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
> > funding with people in this community (including in the steering
> > committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
> > they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
> > everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
> > privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
> > not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
> > question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
> > ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
> > ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
> > only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
> > who provided just that environment.
> >
> > And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
> > prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
> > take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
> > conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
> >
> > I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
> > been altered quite radically along these lines.
> >
> > Thanks and best regards,
> > Anja
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
> > > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
> > > to the coordinators of the IGC
> > >
> > >
> > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
> > > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
> > > potentially highly problematic.
> > >
> > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
> > > least, shaping and directing that capacity.
> > >
> > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
> > > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
> > > that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
> > > interests.
> > >
> > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
> > > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
> > > such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
> > > clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
> > >
> > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
> > > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
> > > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
> > > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
> > > where a US government agency is among the funders.
> > >
> > >
> > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
> > > relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
> > > have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
> > > in the future.
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Norbert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
> > > > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
> > > > through the US State Department, see below:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
> > > > Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
> > > > Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
> > > >
> > > > November 8, 2013
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >  Department of State
> > > >
> > > > *Public Notice*
> > > >
> > > > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
> > > > Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
> > > > and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
> > > >
> > > > *SUMMARY*
> > > >
> > > > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
> > > > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
> > > > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
> > > > rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
> > > >
> > > > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
> > > > *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
> > > > *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
> > > > order to obtain a username and password to submit your
> > > > application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal
> > > > Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
> > > > available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
> > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
> > > >
> > > > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
> > > > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
> > > > following issues:
> > > >
> > > > *Moldova*
> > > >
> > > > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
> > > > available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
> > > > minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
> > > > economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
> > > > one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
> > > > Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
> > > > and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
> > > > other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
> > > > three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
> > > > which address more than one of the categories.
> > > >
> > > > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
> > > > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
> > > > and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
> > > > Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
> > > > minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
> > > > political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
> > > > process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
> > > > other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
> > > > civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
> > > > and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
> > > > organizational management, or communication skills.
> > > >
> > > > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
> > > > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
> > > > Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
> > > > tolerance, and understanding through components such as
> > > > inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
> > > > program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
> > > > and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
> > > > the majority group in joint activities.
> > > >
> > > > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
> > > > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
> > > > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
> > > > camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
> > > > program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
> > > > of educational opportunities and outcomes.
> > > >
> > > > *Turkey*
> > > >
> > > > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
> > > > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of
> > > > civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
> > > > citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and
> > > > participate in the political process. The program should support
> > > > civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
> > > > the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
> > > > educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
> > > > process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
> > > > society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
> > > > including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
> > > > respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
> > > > Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
> > > > in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
> > > > educate their constituents and the general populace on
> > > > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
> > > > government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
> > > > Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
> > > > outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
> > > > expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
> > > > will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
> > > > environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
> > > > ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
> > > >
> > > > *Azerbaijan*
> > > >
> > > > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
> > > > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
> > > > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
> > > > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
> > > > will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
> > > > promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
> > > > democratic system of government. The program should also support
> > > > the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
> > > > advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
> > > > increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
> > > > practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
> > > > law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
> > > > NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
> > > > technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
> > > > human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
> > > > effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
> > > > encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
> > > > citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
> > > > activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
> > > > fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
> > > > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
> > > > grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
> > > > grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
> > > > and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
> > > > successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
> > > > strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
> > > > Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
> > > > independent civil society.
> > > >
> > > > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
> > > >
> > > > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission
> > > > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
> > > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
> > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
> > > > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
> > > > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
> > > >
> > > > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
> > > > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
> > > > section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
> > > > organizations to use the given space effectively.
> > > >
> > > > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
> > > > per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
> > > > and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
> > > > that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
> > > > the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
> > > > ineligible.*
> > > >
> > > > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
> > > > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov*
> > > > <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov*
> > > > <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
> > > > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
> > > > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
> > > > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
> > > > submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
> > > > the solicitation and this document.
> > > >
> > > > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
> > > > proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov*
> > > > <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov*
> > > > <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
> > > > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
> > > > conversion processes.*
> > > >
> > > > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
> > > > Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
> > > > discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
> > > > process has been completed.
> > > >
> > > > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
> > > > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov*
> > > > <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
> > > >
> > > > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
> > > >
> > > > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
> > > > organization or other sources, such as public-private
> > > > partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
> > > > strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
> > > > be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
> > > > technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
> > > > explicit component related to the requested program objectives
> > > > listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
> > > > development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
> > > > strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
> > > > outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
> > > >
> > > > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
> > > > for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
> > > > terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
> > > > government.
> > > >
> > > > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
> > > > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
> > > > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
> > > > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
> > > > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
> > > > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
> > > > accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
> > > >
> > > > This request for proposals will appear on
> > > > *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
> > > > *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
> > > > website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
> > > >
> > > > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
> > > >
> > > > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
> > > > feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov*
> > > > <SpitzerEM at State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State
> > > > Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
> > > > embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
> > > > applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Stay connected with the State Department:
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> > >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131110/dce41a05/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Nov  9 11:41:35 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 08:41:35 -0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnKx_jvcU1Yfnr_fPYnOOuWTqfb-reLd7sGboUKyTG=Gg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com> <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <CAH5sThnKx_jvcU1Yfnr_fPYnOOuWTqfb-reLd7sGboUKyTG=Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <92E23480-29D6-48C8-BA80-CD789FE1C0F7@acm.org>

Hi,

I tend to agree with this.  

Personally I would want to ban everyone with funding from Ford, because I hate Ford based on their history and think they should not be allowed to buy respectability through grants for good work.  I seethe  whenever I see their name and think of WWII and a friend whose Pinto blew up. But so what?

And I am sure that many  who donate to Clinton's CGI have horrible histories of colonialism, exploitation and other horrible crimes and complicities.  but so what?

These people donate to NGO so that good works can be done.  Should that good work be condemned?  How esle would advocacy and good works be done?

Likewise with countries.  They may be or have been, the biggest empires or state criminals in history, but if they donate to work that improves the world, those who do the work to improve the world should not be condemned.

Whether we like it or not, NGOs and other do-gooders would not have a chance without the patronage of these Dukes and Princesses.

I agree with those that say the whereabouts of money should be disclosed. Everyone's money - our funders should be known.  But I disagree with anyone who says that a source disqualifies anyone.  What disqualifies someone is their actions.  Do they behave badly?  Do they bully or support bullies? Do they favor their patrons?  We need disclosure so we can all be watchdogs over each other and call each other out when we behave wrongly.

But we don't need witch hunts.  Lets look at the work people do and they way they treat others, not at which criminal has supported their work.

avri

Disclosure: currently my funding comes from a contract with dotgay LLC, an commercial applicant for a community run gTLD, who guarantee to give 67% of their profits for LGBTQI causes - at this point, before they have any profits, I am the cause they support.  i also get paid to write various thingies, but have no open contracts at the moment. (no that is not really an job search)





On 9 Nov 2013, at 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I cannot speak for Anja but I may explain something, in many countries ,lets say not so democratic in the south, one of usual attacks from regimes or way to dismiss activists and NGOs is to  accuse them to of getting funding from foreign sources and being their puppets.
>  
> furthermore, like many mentioned previously, it is strange to focus  USA , what about others countries? isn't it inconsistent?
> 
> yes we need transparency and we can setup process for that : like statement of any conflict of interests when running for elections or updating such statement regularly.that is proof of good faith and trust.
> 
> finally, to be cynical I am more concerned these days by positions defended by some from CS, positions I found damaging for us. And trust me they are not taking any  funds from USG.
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> Rafik Dammak
> @rafik
> "fight for the users"
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131109/55d72d30/attachment.sig>

From jam at globalilluminators.org  Sat Nov  9 12:05:10 2013
From: jam at globalilluminators.org (jam at globalilluminators.org)
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:05:10 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] Invitation to Participate in International Conference in
 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
Message-ID: <20131109110510.0lw3v3hi8gckkwck@webmail.opentransfer.com>


   Dear Folks,  Hi
       On behalf of Global Illuminators I feel immense pleasure to  
invite all interested civil society members to join International  
conference organized by Global Illuminators.
Conference Title: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ?INNOVATION CHALLENGES IN
                   MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH & PRACTICE?
                   (ICMRP, December 13-14, 2013 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Conference Main Theme: ?Lets help all fields grow together to serve  
the society
                          in a better way?

For registration and further detailed information please follow the  
conference website link below:
http://www.globalilluminators.org/icmrp2013-kualalumpur/

Best regard

-- 
Farooq Ahmed Jam
Executive Director
Global Illuminators
Contact: +60102546571
E-mail:jam at globalilluminators.org
Weblink: www.globalilluminators.org




From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Nov  9 13:46:48 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 19:46:48 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] I DISCLOSE
In-Reply-To: <CANMQhZjRcH2qnyBrSRW6Hep06yJ4Ej_J5S+cG7q=yxDmhdv-6Q@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
 <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
 <CANMQhZjRcH2qnyBrSRW6Hep06yJ4Ej_J5S+cG7q=yxDmhdv-6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.63.1642081810.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131109/b02b81e8/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Sat Nov  9 15:33:51 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 22:33:51 +0200
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST
 Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>	<20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>

Dear all

Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter.   We are in these spaces
together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations
and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always
agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some
common concerns and interests.

Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs
has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific
issues, is not achievable.  Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources is
not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to do
quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues
constructively.

Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed
important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most
civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in their
annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually be found
on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if you are
interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But there are
also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding publicly
because of constraints in their countries (as has been said in this
thread already).  We have to respect that. Not everyone has the same
degree of choice in who their funding partners are. 

Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply visit
our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on page 67 of
the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan).
http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf

APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - but
some of our members do -  either directly or through partners. Some of
them they work in countries where they really have very little choice as
there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human rights
work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should be seen
in that light.

I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My view
is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their funding
comes from, I think we should show support to one another - and when
possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of funding in the
sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, particularly sources
that are very directly linked to potentially problematic political
agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of funding is never wise,
particularly (but not only) when the source is a government. Certainly
if some of us were to form partnerships on projects, we would first
learn more about one another's donor policies and practices. But IGC,
IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and loose coalitions. They
don't require this kind of formality.

Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be too
judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations about
funding politics are important. But rather than make these spaces
(particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, we should
try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if offlist)
risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor
relationships.

Anriette





On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean
> money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all
> handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get
> too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how
> any conflicts of interest are managed.
>
> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no donors
> currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by
> Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work
> on are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German
> government agency.
>
> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail
> how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints
> that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a
> public list.
>
> (Replying from my phone.)
>
> -- 
> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
> '{print $3}'
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>
>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
>> a wall and shooting them".
>>
>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
>> government?
>>
>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
>> Bali.
>>
>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.
>>
>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.
>>
>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
>> schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>:
>>
>>> Norbert,
>>>
>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
>>> North.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
>>> different.
>>>
>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering
>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
>>> who provided just that environment.
>>>
>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
>>>
>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
>>> been altered quite radically along these lines.
>>>
>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
>>>> potentially highly problematic.
>>>>
>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>>>>
>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
>>>> interests.
>>>>
>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
>>>> in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>>>>> through the US State Department, see below:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>
>>>>> November 8, 2013
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Department of State
>>>>>
>>>>> *Public Notice*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>
>>>>> *SUMMARY*
>>>>>
>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>>>>>
>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>* <http://www.grants.gov/>*
>>>>> as soon as possible in
>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your
>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL's Proposal
>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>>>>>
>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>>>>> following issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> *Moldova*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
>>>>> which address more than one of the categories.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Civic Engagement* -- Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Social Inclusion* -- Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as
>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
>>>>> the majority group in joint activities.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Education* -- Education proposals should focus on improving
>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Turkey*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL's objective is to build the voice of
>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
>>>>> citizens' awareness that they should be informed about and
>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support
>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on
>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Azerbaijan*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support
>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan's
>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
>>>>> independent civil society.
>>>>>
>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>>>>>
>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL's posted Proposal Submission
>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>>>>>
>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
>>>>> ineligible.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov
>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov
>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
>>>>> the solicitation and this document.
>>>>>
>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov
>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov
>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>>>>> conversion processes.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
>>>>> process has been completed.
>>>>>
>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov
>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>>>>>
>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>>>>>
>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private
>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives
>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
>>>>>
>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
>>>>> government.
>>>>>
>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on
>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov
>>>>> <http://www.grantosolutions.gov>*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL's
>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl*>
>>>>> <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>>>>>
>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>>>>>
>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov
>>>>> <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>*
>>>>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>>. Once the
>>>>> deadline has passed, State
>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131109/a2e4942b/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sat Nov  9 18:14:02 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 23:14:02 +0000
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST
 Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>,<54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A5106@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

My 2 cents: no offense Norbert, but this exercise is bordering on silly.

An unnamed (specifically) German government agency is fine; whereas USG programs aimed to support civil society are bad? (and sorry to pick on your example Jeremy, but since you offered ; )

My disclosure: on occasion I receive funding from the US National Science Foundation.  But I suppose that makes me also suspect because the USG is powerful; whereas Germany isn't?

Please find anyone in Greece, or for that matter France or Switzerland, who will agree with that view of Germany and German government agencies.

I suggest starting this discussion all over again: suggesting that some process be established for Best Bits folks fuller disclosure of interests and conflicts of interests is a normal step in a process of institutionalization of informal processes.

But whatever those processes are, they should be thought through carefully and not start off as pre-judged based on one persons particular world view. My 2 cents, obviously biased by taking $ from USG...science agency ; )

Lee
________________________________
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 3:42 AM
To: Norbert Bollow
Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society...

I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how any conflicts of interest are managed.

Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German government agency.

This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a public list.

(Replying from my phone.)

--
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<http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:

I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
a wall and shooting them".

Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
government?

I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
Bali.

However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.

Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.

There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
does not want to be an accomplice through silence.

Greetings,
Norbert


Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>:

Norbert,

As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
North.

With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
different.

While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
funding with people in this community (including in the steering
committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
who provided just that environment.

And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.

I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
been altered quite radically along these lines.

Thanks and best regards,
Anja



On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:

Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
to the coordinators of the IGC


I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
potentially highly problematic.

Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
least, shaping and directing that capacity.

People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
interests.

For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.

Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
where a US government agency is among the funders.


For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
in the future.

Greetings,
Norbert



Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear All,

For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
through the US State Department, see below:



Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)

November 8, 2013

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

Department of State

*Public Notice*

*Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)

*SUMMARY*

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.

*PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
*www.grantsolutions.gov<http://www.grantsolutions.gov>* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
*www.grants.gov<http://www.grants.gov>* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
order to obtain a username and password to submit your
application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal
Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
*

*REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*

DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
following issues:

*Moldova*

*Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
which address more than one of the categories.

*Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
organizational management, or communication skills.

*Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
tolerance, and understanding through components such as
inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
the majority group in joint activities.

*Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
of educational opportunities and outcomes.

*Turkey*

*Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
$500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of
civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and
participate in the political process. The program should support
civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
educate their constituents and the general populace on
fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
ability to work with diverse civil society groups.

*Azerbaijan*

*Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
democratic system of government. The program should also support
the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
independent civil society.

*DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*

Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission
Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
*http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
.

Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).

To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
organizations to use the given space effectively.

An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
ineligible.*

Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov<http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
<http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov<http://www.grants.gov>*
<http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
the solicitation and this document.

*It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov<http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
<http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov<http://www.grants.gov>*
<http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
conversion processes.*

Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
process has been completed.

*NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov<http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
<http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.

*ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*

Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
organization or other sources, such as public-private
partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
explicit component related to the requested program objectives
listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.

DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
government.

The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.

This request for proposals will appear on
*www.grantosolutions.gov<http://www.grantosolutions.gov>*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
*www.grants.gov<http://www.grants.gov>* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
website, *www.state.gov/j/drl*<http://www.state.gov/j/drl*> <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.

*FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*

Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov<mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>*
<SpitzerEM at State.gov<mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>>. Once the deadline has passed, State
Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.


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

Stay connected with the State Department:


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131109/da7d3245/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Sat Nov  9 18:28:20 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 18:28:20 -0500
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST
 Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com> <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1765E862-76B8-413B-9AC0-D0264F9EFD63@gmail.com>

Fully agree with Anriette

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 9, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear all
> 
> Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter.   We are in these spaces together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some common concerns and interests.
> 
> Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific issues, is not achievable.  Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues constructively. 
> 
> Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said in this thread already).  We have to respect that. Not everyone has the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are.  
> 
> Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf
> 
> APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - but some of our members do -  either directly or through partners. Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should be seen in that light. 
> 
> I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another - and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality.
> 
> Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations about funding politics are important. But rather than make these spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor relationships. 
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how any conflicts of interest are managed.
>> 
>> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are         no donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German government agency.
>> 
>> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a public list.
>> 
>> (Replying from my phone.)
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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}'
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
>>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
>>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
>>> a wall and shooting them".
>>> 
>>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
>>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
>>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
>>> government?
>>> 
>>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
>>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
>>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
>>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
>>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
>>> Bali.
>>> 
>>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
>>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
>>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.
>>> 
>>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
>>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
>>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.
>>> 
>>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
>>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence.
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
>>> schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>:
>>> 
>>>> Norbert,
>>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
>>>> the divide between civil society               in the Global South and the Global
>>>> North.
>>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
>>>> unacceptable. Lining people up               against a wall and shooting them, as
>>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
>>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
>>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
>>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
>>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
>>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
>>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
>>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
>>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
>>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
>>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
>>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
>>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
>>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
>>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
>>>> of accepting any particular kind               of funding will necessarily be quite
>>>> different.
>>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
>>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering
>>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
>>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
>>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
>>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
>>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
>>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
>>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
>>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
>>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
>>>> who provided just that environment.
>>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
>>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
>>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
>>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
>>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
>>>> been altered quite radically along these lines.
>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>> Anja
>>>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
>>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
>>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC
>>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
>>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
>>>>> potentially highly problematic.
>>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
>>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
>>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
>>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
>>>>> interests.
>>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
>>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
>>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
>>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
>>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
>>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
>>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
>>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
>>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
>>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
>>>>> in the future.
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>>>>>> through the US State Department, see below:
>>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
>>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
>>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>> November 8, 2013
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> Department of State
>>>>>> *Public Notice*
>>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
>>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
>>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>> *SUMMARY*
>>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
>>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>>>>>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
>>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your
>>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal
>>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
>>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>>>>>> DRL invites organizations to                   submit proposals outlining program
>>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>>>>>> following issues:
>>>>>> *Moldova*
>>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
>>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
>>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
>>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
>>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
>>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
>>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
>>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
>>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
>>>>>> which address more than one of the categories.
>>>>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
>>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
>>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
>>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
>>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
>>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
>>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
>>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
>>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
>>>>>> organizational management,                   or communication skills.
>>>>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
>>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
>>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as
>>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
>>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
>>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
>>>>>> the majority group in joint activities.
>>>>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
>>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
>>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
>>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
>>>>>> of educational opportunities                   and outcomes.
>>>>>> *Turkey*
>>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of
>>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
>>>>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and
>>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support
>>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
>>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
>>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
>>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
>>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
>>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
>>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
>>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
>>>>>> in public policy debates and                   encourage these coalitions to
>>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on
>>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
>>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
>>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
>>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
>>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
>>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
>>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
>>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
>>>>>> *Azerbaijan*
>>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment                   in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>>>>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
>>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
>>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
>>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support
>>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
>>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
>>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
>>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
>>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
>>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
>>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
>>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
>>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
>>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
>>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
>>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
>>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
>>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
>>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
>>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
>>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
>>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
>>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
>>>>>> independent civil society.
>>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission
>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>>>>>> time. Applicants must follow                   all formatting instructions in this
>>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
>>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
>>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively.
>>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
>>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
>>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
>>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
>>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000)                   may be deemed technically
>>>>>> ineligible.*
>>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov*
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
>>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
>>>>>> the solicitation and this document.
>>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
>>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov*
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov*
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>>>>>> conversion processes.*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
>>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
>>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
>>>>>> process has been completed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private
>>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
>>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
>>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
>>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
>>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives
>>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
>>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
>>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
>>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
>>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
>>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
>>>>>> government.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>>>>>> provided by the Bureau that                   contradicts this language will not be
>>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
>>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on
>>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>>>>>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
>>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
>>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov*
>>>>>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State
>>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
>>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
>>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131109/ec189dcb/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Sat Nov  9 21:08:50 2013
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:53:50 +0545
Subject: [bestbits] OpEd on Surveillance
Message-ID: <B3260A97-E3F9-4EE1-9A40-55915F968FE4@consensus.pro>

Hello friends, from Namche Bazar in the foothills of the Nepalese Himalaya :)

I have just had an opinion piece on surveillance published in CircleID which some of you might appreciate, you can find it here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131109_we_have_a_paradigm_for_surveillance_fit_for_the_analogue_past/

It makes the point that you can break the Internet trying to solve problems with access to personal information online but not really solve the problem unless you look at how countries treat foreigners as ‘fair game’ for unlimited surveillance.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131110/7ad29739/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131110/7ad29739/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov 10 05:27:08 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:57:08 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for
 Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>	<20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
Message-ID: <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>

Dear All,

As some have been shocked by Norbert's email, frankly I too am, well 
almost, shocked to hear about the problem or hesitation so many of us 
here seem to have in applying transparency principles to civil society 
organisations and coalitions in the IG space - especially with regard to 
those who hold positions of 'power' in CS arrangements, as being our 
managers of processes, interlocutors with other groups, representatives 
for UN working groups, MAG, and so on.

However, let me try to separate two lines of discussion here, in the 
hope that IG civil society  willstillbe able to apply transparency and 
accountability principles to itself, that it so much preaches to all 
others, especially the governments.(In principle agreement with 
principles is of little use in absence of the required will to apply 
them in practice.)

Need for transparency, including of our funding relationship is one 
thing, and /*is fact based*/. Judgement of neutrality /*is well a 
judgement*/, and quite another thing. Although people will make such 
judgement based on information available because there is transparency 
in the first place. They would very likely make such a judgement in 
different ways, as we have seen in this thread, and that is fine. But 
such differences do not need to affect a prior agreement that, yes, 
there should be maximum transparency. The two issues should not be 
conflated, and our different judgements on what could be passable basis 
for neutrality should not cloud a discussion on the prior issue whether 
we agree on transparency vis a vis funding relationships (and I will 
add, basic statement of objectives, activities, organisational 
relationships and so on).

I hope we can separate the two issues and the discussion regarding them.

One important issue related to funding transparency is of exceptional 
situations in which the personal security of those involved with certain 
kinds of sensitive CS work may get compromised because of 
'transparency'. Now, this issue is real, but it cannot be used as a 
cover all excuse to not have any transparency at all.

The situation is very similar, almost identical, to that of governments 
claiming that since governments do considerable work whose disclosure 
may compromise national/ public security, demands for right to (public) 
information are misplaced. In many countries, including India, civil 
society groups have successfully called this bluff. In most cases it is 
agreed that while public order/ security exemption may be valid in some 
case, the default is full transparency, and the case of each and every 
national/ public security exception should be specially made and 
generally accepted. Shouldnt the same test apply to civil society 
propositions of 'personal security' exception. Why do we allow ourselves 
to be so soft on ourselves. We may not think so but the world is 
watching and judging us. Even more that other stakeholders. civil 
society's legitimacy is made or lost dynamically with each of its 
actions and inactions.

/*Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians 
of CS processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups, 
MAG etc) should divulge basic information about themselves, which 
includes all funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational 
identity if any, a basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives, 
and summary of *//*activities*//*in the past, present and planned.*/
*/
/**/This is a clear and direct proposal, and I request lets not 
emotionalise it with making judgements or challenging judgements about 
how the products of such transparency would be seen /**/as in terms of 
neutrality or otherwise. /*While of course there is no doubt that 
transparency is being asked for the purpose of allowing people to make 
their judgements,  my simple point is; we need not agree on these 
judgements even as we agree on the need for transparency - and the 
specific ways to operationalize the transparency principle.

parminder


On Sunday 10 November 2013 02:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter.   We are in these spaces 
> together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations 
> and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always 
> agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some 
> common concerns and interests.
>
> Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs 
> has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific 
> issues, is not achievable.  Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources 
> is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to 
> do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues 
> constructively.
>
> Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed 
> important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most 
> civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in 
> their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually 
> be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if 
> you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But 
> there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding 
> publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said 
> in this thread already).  We have to respect that. Not everyone has 
> the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are.
>
> Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply 
> visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on 
> page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). 
> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf
>
> APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - 
> but some of our members do -  either directly or through partners. 
> Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little 
> choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human 
> rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should 
> be seen in that light.
>
> I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My 
> view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their 
> funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another - 
> and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of 
> funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, 
> particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially 
> problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of 
> funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is 
> a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on 
> projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies 
> and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and 
> loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality.
>
> Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be 
> too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations 
> about funding politics are important. But rather than make these 
> spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, 
> we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if 
> offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor 
> relationships.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean 
>> money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all 
>> handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not 
>> get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing 
>> how any conflicts of interest are managed.
>>
>> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no 
>> donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course 
>> supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other 
>> projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, 
>> IDRC and a German government agency.
>>
>> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail 
>> how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints 
>> that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a 
>> public list.
>>
>> (Replying from my phone.)
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk 
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch 
>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
>>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
>>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
>>> a wall and shooting them".
>>>
>>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
>>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
>>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
>>> government?
>>>
>>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
>>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
>>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
>>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
>>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
>>> Bali.
>>>
>>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
>>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
>>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.
>>>
>>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
>>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
>>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.
>>>
>>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
>>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
>>> schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
>>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>:
>>>
>>>> Norbert,
>>>>
>>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
>>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
>>>> North.
>>>>
>>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
>>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
>>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
>>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
>>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
>>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
>>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
>>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
>>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
>>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
>>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
>>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
>>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
>>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
>>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
>>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
>>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
>>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
>>>> different.
>>>>
>>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
>>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering
>>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
>>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
>>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
>>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
>>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
>>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
>>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
>>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
>>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
>>>> who provided just that environment.
>>>>
>>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
>>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
>>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
>>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
>>>>
>>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
>>>> been altered quite radically along these lines.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>> Anja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch 
>>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
>>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
>>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
>>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
>>>>> potentially highly problematic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
>>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
>>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
>>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
>>>>> interests.
>>>>>
>>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
>>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
>>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
>>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
>>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
>>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
>>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
>>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
>>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
>>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
>>>>> in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 
>>>>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>>>>>> through the US State Department, see below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
>>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
>>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> November 8, 2013
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Department of State
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Public Notice*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
>>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
>>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *SUMMARY*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
>>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>* 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>* 
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
>>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your
>>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL's Proposal
>>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
>>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
>>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>>>>>> following issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Moldova*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
>>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
>>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
>>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
>>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
>>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
>>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
>>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
>>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
>>>>>> which address more than one of the categories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Civic Engagement* -- Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
>>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
>>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
>>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
>>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
>>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
>>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
>>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
>>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
>>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Social Inclusion* -- Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
>>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
>>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as
>>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
>>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
>>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
>>>>>> the majority group in joint activities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Education* -- Education proposals should focus on improving
>>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
>>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
>>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
>>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Turkey*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL's objective is to build the voice of
>>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
>>>>>> citizens' awareness that they should be informed about and
>>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support
>>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
>>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
>>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
>>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
>>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
>>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
>>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
>>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
>>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
>>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on
>>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
>>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
>>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
>>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
>>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
>>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
>>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
>>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Azerbaijan*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
>>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
>>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
>>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support
>>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
>>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
>>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
>>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
>>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
>>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
>>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
>>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
>>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
>>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
>>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
>>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
>>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan's
>>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
>>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
>>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
>>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
>>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
>>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
>>>>>> independent civil society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL's posted Proposal Submission
>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
>>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
>>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
>>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
>>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
>>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
>>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
>>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
>>>>>> ineligible.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
>>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
>>>>>> the solicitation and this document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
>>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>>>>>> conversion processes.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
>>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
>>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
>>>>>> process has been completed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private
>>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
>>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
>>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
>>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
>>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives
>>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
>>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
>>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
>>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
>>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
>>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
>>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
>>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on
>>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantosolutions.gov>*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>* 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL's
>>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl*> 
>>>>>> <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
>>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov 
>>>>>> <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>*
>>>>>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>>. Once the 
>>>>>> deadline has passed, State
>>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
>>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
>>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org 
>>> <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131110/f486bc27/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sun Nov 10 06:12:03 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:12:03 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for
 Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>	<20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca>

I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple:
we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think
all of these have Web portals. Anyone who needs to check on these issues
regarding any of the participants in these cauci would just visit the
corresponding institutional portal.

But no one is obliged to disclose certain infos -- one reason is of
course the safety regarding a possibly adverse political environment
where the organization legally resides. However, when we select
coordinators for example, it would (again, my opinion) be relevant as
part of the selection criteria to know about funding relationships.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 11/10/2013 08:27 AM, parminder wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> As some have been shocked by Norbert's email, frankly I too am, well
> almost, shocked to hear about the problem or hesitation so many of us
> here seem to have in applying transparency principles to civil society
> organisations and coalitions in the IG space - especially with regard to
> those who hold positions of 'power' in CS arrangements, as being our
> managers of processes, interlocutors with other groups, representatives
> for UN working groups, MAG, and so on.
> 
> However, let me try to separate two lines of discussion here, in the
> hope that IG civil society  willstillbe able to apply transparency and
> accountability principles to itself, that it so much preaches to all
> others, especially the governments.(In principle agreement with
> principles is of little use in absence of the required will to apply
> them in practice.)
> 
> Need for transparency, including of our funding relationship is one
> thing, and /*is fact based*/. Judgement of neutrality /*is well a
> judgement*/, and quite another thing. Although people will make such
> judgement based on information available because there is transparency
> in the first place. They would very likely make such a judgement in
> different ways, as we have seen in this thread, and that is fine. But
> such differences do not need to affect a prior agreement that, yes,
> there should be maximum transparency. The two issues should not be
> conflated, and our different judgements on what could be passable basis
> for neutrality should not cloud a discussion on the prior issue whether
> we agree on transparency vis a vis funding relationships (and I will
> add, basic statement of objectives, activities, organisational
> relationships and so on).
> 
> I hope we can separate the two issues and the discussion regarding them.
> 
> One important issue related to funding transparency is of exceptional
> situations in which the personal security of those involved with certain
> kinds of sensitive CS work may get compromised because of
> 'transparency'. Now, this issue is real, but it cannot be used as a
> cover all excuse to not have any transparency at all.
> 
> The situation is very similar, almost identical, to that of governments
> claiming that since governments do considerable work whose disclosure
> may compromise national/ public security, demands for right to (public)
> information are misplaced. In many countries, including India, civil
> society groups have successfully called this bluff. In most cases it is
> agreed that while public order/ security exemption may be valid in some
> case, the default is full transparency, and the case of each and every
> national/ public security exception should be specially made and
> generally accepted. Shouldnt the same test apply to civil society
> propositions of 'personal security' exception. Why do we allow ourselves
> to be so soft on ourselves. We may not think so but the world is
> watching and judging us. Even more that other stakeholders. civil
> society's legitimacy is made or lost dynamically with each of its
> actions and inactions.
> 
> /*Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians
> of CS processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups,
> MAG etc) should divulge basic information about themselves, which
> includes all funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational
> identity if any, a basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives,
> and summary of *//*activities*//*in the past, present and planned.*/
> */
> /**/This is a clear and direct proposal, and I request lets not
> emotionalise it with making judgements or challenging judgements about
> how the products of such transparency would be seen /**/as in terms of
> neutrality or otherwise. /*While of course there is no doubt that
> transparency is being asked for the purpose of allowing people to make
> their judgements,  my simple point is; we need not agree on these
> judgements even as we agree on the need for transparency - and the
> specific ways to operationalize the transparency principle.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> On Sunday 10 November 2013 02:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter.   We are in these spaces
>> together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations
>> and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always
>> agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some
>> common concerns and interests.
>>
>> Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs
>> has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific
>> issues, is not achievable.  Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources
>> is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to
>> do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues
>> constructively.
>>
>> Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed
>> important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most
>> civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in
>> their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually
>> be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if
>> you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But
>> there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding
>> publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said
>> in this thread already).  We have to respect that. Not everyone has
>> the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are. 
>>
>> Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply
>> visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on
>> page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan).
>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf
>>
>> APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State -
>> but some of our members do -  either directly or through partners.
>> Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little
>> choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human
>> rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should
>> be seen in that light.
>>
>> I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My
>> view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their
>> funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another -
>> and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of
>> funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources,
>> particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially
>> problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of
>> funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is
>> a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on
>> projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies
>> and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and
>> loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality.
>>
>> Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be
>> too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations
>> about funding politics are important. But rather than make these
>> spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already,
>> we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if
>> offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor
>> relationships.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean
>>> money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all
>>> handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not
>>> get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing
>>> how any conflicts of interest are managed.
>>>
>>> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no
>>> donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course
>>> supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other
>>> projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations,
>>> IDRC and a German government agency.
>>>
>>> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail
>>> how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints
>>> that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a
>>> public list.
>>>
>>> (Replying from my phone.)
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk
>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>
>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
>>>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
>>>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
>>>> a wall and shooting them".
>>>>
>>>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
>>>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
>>>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
>>>> government?
>>>>
>>>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
>>>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
>>>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
>>>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
>>>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
>>>> Bali.
>>>>
>>>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
>>>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
>>>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
>>>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
>>>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.
>>>>
>>>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
>>>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
>>>> schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
>>>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>:
>>>>
>>>>> Norbert,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
>>>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
>>>>> North.
>>>>>
>>>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
>>>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
>>>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
>>>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
>>>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
>>>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
>>>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
>>>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
>>>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
>>>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
>>>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
>>>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
>>>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
>>>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
>>>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
>>>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
>>>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
>>>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
>>>>> different.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
>>>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering
>>>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
>>>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
>>>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
>>>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
>>>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
>>>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
>>>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
>>>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
>>>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
>>>>> who provided just that environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
>>>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
>>>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
>>>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
>>>>> been altered quite radically along these lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>> Anja
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
>>>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
>>>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
>>>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
>>>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
>>>>>> potentially highly problematic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
>>>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
>>>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
>>>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
>>>>>> interests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
>>>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
>>>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
>>>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
>>>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
>>>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
>>>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
>>>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
>>>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
>>>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
>>>>>> in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>>>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>>>>>>> through the US State Department, see below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
>>>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
>>>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> November 8, 2013
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Department of State
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Public Notice*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
>>>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
>>>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *SUMMARY*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>>>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>>>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
>>>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>>>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>>>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
>>>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your
>>>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal
>>>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
>>>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
>>>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>>>>>>> following issues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Moldova*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
>>>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
>>>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
>>>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
>>>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
>>>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
>>>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
>>>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
>>>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
>>>>>>> which address more than one of the categories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>>>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
>>>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
>>>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
>>>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
>>>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
>>>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
>>>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
>>>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
>>>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
>>>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>>>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
>>>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
>>>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as
>>>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
>>>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
>>>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
>>>>>>> the majority group in joint activities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
>>>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>>>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
>>>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
>>>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
>>>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Turkey*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>>>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of
>>>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
>>>>>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and
>>>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support
>>>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
>>>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
>>>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
>>>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
>>>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
>>>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
>>>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
>>>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
>>>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
>>>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on
>>>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
>>>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
>>>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
>>>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
>>>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
>>>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
>>>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
>>>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Azerbaijan*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>>>>>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>>>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>>>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
>>>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
>>>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
>>>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support
>>>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
>>>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
>>>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
>>>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
>>>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
>>>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
>>>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
>>>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
>>>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
>>>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
>>>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
>>>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
>>>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
>>>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
>>>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
>>>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
>>>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
>>>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>>>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
>>>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
>>>>>>> independent civil society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission
>>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>>>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>>>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
>>>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>>>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
>>>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
>>>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
>>>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
>>>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
>>>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
>>>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
>>>>>>> ineligible.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>>>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov
>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov
>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>>>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>>>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
>>>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
>>>>>>> the solicitation and this document.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
>>>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov
>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov
>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>>>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>>>>>>> conversion processes.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
>>>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
>>>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
>>>>>>> process has been completed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>>>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov
>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>>>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private
>>>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
>>>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
>>>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
>>>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
>>>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives
>>>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
>>>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
>>>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
>>>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
>>>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
>>>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
>>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>>>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>>>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
>>>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>>>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>>>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
>>>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on
>>>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov
>>>>>>> <http://www.grantosolutions.gov>*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>>>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
>>>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl*>
>>>>>>> <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
>>>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov
>>>>>>> <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>*
>>>>>>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>>. Once the
>>>>>>> deadline has passed, State
>>>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
>>>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
>>>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IRP mailing list
>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>> <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
> 

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Sun Nov 10 06:32:13 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 06:32:13 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
 <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxh1nCUFAJBBiHzy5su9SUDvD9vHycfAqeJOoeFvOnkKWg@mail.gmail.com>

Parminder,

I have trimmed the cc list, as this thread was originally is about BB.

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:27 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
<snip>
>
> Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians of CS
> processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups, MAG etc)
> should divulge basic information about themselves, which includes all
> funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational identity if any, a
> basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives, and summary of activities
> in the past, present and planned.

The above does not describe NB proposal.  The quote below does:

"Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
where a US government agency is among the funders."


>
> This is a clear and direct proposal,

but it only covers one country.

rgds,

McTim

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov 10 06:48:32 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:18:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>	<20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <527F7290.6020901@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 10 November 2013 04:42 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple:

Yes, agree, Carlos, it is really simple. (It is not as if Norbert 
invented the term 'NGO transparency'. Just searching the term on a 
search engine will tell one the breath and depth  of the work done in 
this area, and how out of times it is for civil society groups to be 
dismissive of NGO transparency needs and requirements)
> we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think
> all of these have Web portals. Anyone who needs to check on these issues
> regarding any of the participants in these cauci would just visit the
> corresponding institutional portal.

Yes, the norm should be that civil society orgs publish all such info on 
their websites.... Unfortunately, some very prominent players in global 
IG space do not do so...

>
> But no one is obliged to disclose certain infos --

Agreed. In general we cannot force all involved NGOs/ CS persons to do 
so.... We can only push it as a desired norm (and not shoot people like 
Norbert who propose such norms/ principles))

>   one reason is of
> course the safety regarding a possibly adverse political environment
> where the organization legally resides.
I agreed to this point in my below email. But we should not use such a 
'personal safety' argument as a blanket excuse against needed 
disclosures - as govs are not allowed to use 'national/ public security' 
logic in a blanket manner. Any 'personal safety' proposition should 
plausibly match the known specific conditions, and in this matter 'pass 
the giggle test'.

> However, when we select
> coordinators for example, it would (again, my opinion) be relevant as
> part of the selection criteria to know about funding relationships.

In fact, that is all that has been asked for. None here ever asked for 
anything more. Those who are associated (or are to be associated) with 
managing CS processes, being CS reps on bodies like MAG. different WGs, 
CS interlocutors with other bodies, and such special CS positions should 
divulge such information. Simply because other CS bodies/ persons have 
to elect/ select them as their reps in some manner and need to know some 
basic info to be able to do so.  I seek that we collectively adopt this 
principle, and make it operative.

parminder
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/10/2013 08:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> As some have been shocked by Norbert's email, frankly I too am, well
>> almost, shocked to hear about the problem or hesitation so many of us
>> here seem to have in applying transparency principles to civil society
>> organisations and coalitions in the IG space - especially with regard to
>> those who hold positions of 'power' in CS arrangements, as being our
>> managers of processes, interlocutors with other groups, representatives
>> for UN working groups, MAG, and so on.
>>
>> However, let me try to separate two lines of discussion here, in the
>> hope that IG civil society  willstillbe able to apply transparency and
>> accountability principles to itself, that it so much preaches to all
>> others, especially the governments.(In principle agreement with
>> principles is of little use in absence of the required will to apply
>> them in practice.)
>>
>> Need for transparency, including of our funding relationship is one
>> thing, and /*is fact based*/. Judgement of neutrality /*is well a
>> judgement*/, and quite another thing. Although people will make such
>> judgement based on information available because there is transparency
>> in the first place. They would very likely make such a judgement in
>> different ways, as we have seen in this thread, and that is fine. But
>> such differences do not need to affect a prior agreement that, yes,
>> there should be maximum transparency. The two issues should not be
>> conflated, and our different judgements on what could be passable basis
>> for neutrality should not cloud a discussion on the prior issue whether
>> we agree on transparency vis a vis funding relationships (and I will
>> add, basic statement of objectives, activities, organisational
>> relationships and so on).
>>
>> I hope we can separate the two issues and the discussion regarding them.
>>
>> One important issue related to funding transparency is of exceptional
>> situations in which the personal security of those involved with certain
>> kinds of sensitive CS work may get compromised because of
>> 'transparency'. Now, this issue is real, but it cannot be used as a
>> cover all excuse to not have any transparency at all.
>>
>> The situation is very similar, almost identical, to that of governments
>> claiming that since governments do considerable work whose disclosure
>> may compromise national/ public security, demands for right to (public)
>> information are misplaced. In many countries, including India, civil
>> society groups have successfully called this bluff. In most cases it is
>> agreed that while public order/ security exemption may be valid in some
>> case, the default is full transparency, and the case of each and every
>> national/ public security exception should be specially made and
>> generally accepted. Shouldnt the same test apply to civil society
>> propositions of 'personal security' exception. Why do we allow ourselves
>> to be so soft on ourselves. We may not think so but the world is
>> watching and judging us. Even more that other stakeholders. civil
>> society's legitimacy is made or lost dynamically with each of its
>> actions and inactions.
>>
>> /*Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians
>> of CS processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups,
>> MAG etc) should divulge basic information about themselves, which
>> includes all funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational
>> identity if any, a basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives,
>> and summary of *//*activities*//*in the past, present and planned.*/
>> */
>> /**/This is a clear and direct proposal, and I request lets not
>> emotionalise it with making judgements or challenging judgements about
>> how the products of such transparency would be seen /**/as in terms of
>> neutrality or otherwise. /*While of course there is no doubt that
>> transparency is being asked for the purpose of allowing people to make
>> their judgements,  my simple point is; we need not agree on these
>> judgements even as we agree on the need for transparency - and the
>> specific ways to operationalize the transparency principle.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 10 November 2013 02:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter.   We are in these spaces
>>> together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations
>>> and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always
>>> agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some
>>> common concerns and interests.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs
>>> has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific
>>> issues, is not achievable.  Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources
>>> is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to
>>> do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues
>>> constructively.
>>>
>>> Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed
>>> important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most
>>> civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in
>>> their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually
>>> be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if
>>> you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But
>>> there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding
>>> publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said
>>> in this thread already).  We have to respect that. Not everyone has
>>> the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are.
>>>
>>> Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply
>>> visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on
>>> page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan).
>>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf
>>>
>>> APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State -
>>> but some of our members do -  either directly or through partners.
>>> Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little
>>> choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human
>>> rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should
>>> be seen in that light.
>>>
>>> I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My
>>> view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their
>>> funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another -
>>> and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of
>>> funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources,
>>> particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially
>>> problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of
>>> funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is
>>> a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on
>>> projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies
>>> and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and
>>> loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality.
>>>
>>> Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be
>>> too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations
>>> about funding politics are important. But rather than make these
>>> spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already,
>>> we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if
>>> offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor
>>> relationships.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean
>>>> money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all
>>>> handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not
>>>> get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing
>>>> how any conflicts of interest are managed.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no
>>>> donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course
>>>> supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other
>>>> projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations,
>>>> IDRC and a German government agency.
>>>>
>>>> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail
>>>> how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints
>>>> that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a
>>>> public list.
>>>>
>>>> (Replying from my phone.)
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk
>>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>
>>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
>>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
>>>>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
>>>>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
>>>>> a wall and shooting them".
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
>>>>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
>>>>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
>>>>> government?
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
>>>>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
>>>>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
>>>>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
>>>>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
>>>>> Bali.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
>>>>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
>>>>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
>>>>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
>>>>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
>>>>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
>>>>> schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
>>>>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Norbert,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
>>>>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
>>>>>> North.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
>>>>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
>>>>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
>>>>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
>>>>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
>>>>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
>>>>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
>>>>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
>>>>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
>>>>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
>>>>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
>>>>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
>>>>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
>>>>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
>>>>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
>>>>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
>>>>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
>>>>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
>>>>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering
>>>>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
>>>>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
>>>>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
>>>>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
>>>>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
>>>>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
>>>>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
>>>>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
>>>>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
>>>>>> who provided just that environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
>>>>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
>>>>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
>>>>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
>>>>>> been altered quite radically along these lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>> Anja
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
>>>>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
>>>>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
>>>>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
>>>>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
>>>>>>> potentially highly problematic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
>>>>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
>>>>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
>>>>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
>>>>>>> interests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
>>>>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
>>>>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
>>>>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
>>>>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
>>>>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
>>>>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
>>>>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
>>>>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
>>>>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
>>>>>>> in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>>>>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>>>>>>>> through the US State Department, see below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
>>>>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
>>>>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> November 8, 2013
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Department of State
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Public Notice*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
>>>>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
>>>>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *SUMMARY*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>>>>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>>>>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
>>>>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>>>>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>>>>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
>>>>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your
>>>>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal
>>>>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
>>>>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
>>>>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>>>>>>>> following issues:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Moldova*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
>>>>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
>>>>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
>>>>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
>>>>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
>>>>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
>>>>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
>>>>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
>>>>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
>>>>>>>> which address more than one of the categories.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>>>>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
>>>>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
>>>>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
>>>>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
>>>>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
>>>>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
>>>>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
>>>>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
>>>>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
>>>>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>>>>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
>>>>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
>>>>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as
>>>>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
>>>>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
>>>>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
>>>>>>>> the majority group in joint activities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
>>>>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>>>>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
>>>>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
>>>>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
>>>>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Turkey*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>>>>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of
>>>>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
>>>>>>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and
>>>>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support
>>>>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
>>>>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
>>>>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
>>>>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
>>>>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
>>>>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
>>>>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
>>>>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
>>>>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
>>>>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on
>>>>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
>>>>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
>>>>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
>>>>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
>>>>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
>>>>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
>>>>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
>>>>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Azerbaijan*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>>>>>>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>>>>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>>>>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
>>>>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
>>>>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
>>>>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support
>>>>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
>>>>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
>>>>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
>>>>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
>>>>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
>>>>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
>>>>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
>>>>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
>>>>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
>>>>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
>>>>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
>>>>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
>>>>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
>>>>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
>>>>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
>>>>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
>>>>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
>>>>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>>>>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
>>>>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
>>>>>>>> independent civil society.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission
>>>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>>>>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>>>>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
>>>>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>>>>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
>>>>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
>>>>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
>>>>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
>>>>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
>>>>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
>>>>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
>>>>>>>> ineligible.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>>>>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>>>>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>>>>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>>>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
>>>>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
>>>>>>>> the solicitation and this document.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
>>>>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>>>>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>>>>>>>> conversion processes.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
>>>>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
>>>>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
>>>>>>>> process has been completed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>>>>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>>>>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private
>>>>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
>>>>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
>>>>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
>>>>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
>>>>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives
>>>>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
>>>>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
>>>>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
>>>>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
>>>>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
>>>>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
>>>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>>>>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>>>>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
>>>>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>>>>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>>>>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
>>>>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on
>>>>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grantosolutions.gov>*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>>>>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
>>>>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl*>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
>>>>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov
>>>>>>>> <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>*
>>>>>>>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>>. Once the
>>>>>>>> deadline has passed, State
>>>>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
>>>>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
>>>>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IRP mailing list
>>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>>> <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IRP mailing list
>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov 10 06:56:02 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:26:02 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxh1nCUFAJBBiHzy5su9SUDvD9vHycfAqeJOoeFvOnkKWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com> <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxh1nCUFAJBBiHzy5su9SUDvD9vHycfAqeJOoeFvOnkKWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <527F7452.6050200@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 10 November 2013 05:02 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>> Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians of CS
>> processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups, MAG etc)
>> should divulge basic information about themselves, which includes all
>> funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational identity if any, a
>> basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives, and summary of activities
>> in the past, present and planned.
> The above does not describe NB proposal.  The quote below does:
>
> "Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
> where a US government agency is among the funders."

Agreed. Pursuant to subsequent discussions,  Norbert poser about a 
particular country (which is indeed one of the most powerful players 
around and holds a special position) should be amended to include all 
funding sources (whereby Norbert still gets his answer, and everyone can 
make their respective judgements vis a vis all the different sources). 
Do you agree now?


parminder


>
>
>> This is a clear and direct proposal,
> but it only covers one country.
>
> rgds,
>
> McTim


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Nov 10 07:40:10 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:40:10 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for
 Strengthening  Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
 <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
 <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
 <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
 <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <mailman.64.1642081810.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

"19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; 
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and 
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media 
and regardless of frontiers."

I understand that in this text:

- the "everyone" leads to a not achievable cohesion problem for Anriette,
- that may result from the kind of "interference" Norbert would like 
to prevent.
- Parminder addresses it with a simple solution: whoever you are, 
whatever your opinion make me trust they are not biased by a paid agenda.

I disclosed as requested. I am favorable to a CS Oath as does the 
Olympic Committee which has a similar problem.
jfc



From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Sun Nov 10 09:14:48 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:14:48 +0000
Subject: Fwd: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for
 Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh13bQ+VgOVas-WcKPnZeMW6s0s4_+-gtfozmmRSVmfnz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
	<54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
	<527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
	<527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
	<20131110124021.E3FDD3287CC@a2knetwork.org>
	<CADFgh13bQ+VgOVas-WcKPnZeMW6s0s4_+-gtfozmmRSVmfnz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh131MH-oqC=QCpWvA=POcL6z3vfu0kbHqMbT7doRSk5n4A@mail.gmail.com>

Happy Sunday people.


   1. I am replying ONLY on Best Bits since  that is where I am on
   "Steering".
   2. My understanding is that this thread on transparency is motivated by
   the deep desire for "CS actions, opinions" to remain Indpendent. So I link
   both
   3. Since this is Best Bits, I figure the question is "Nnenna, as a
   member of BB Steering, are your activities funded by a government?"

I have me a few questions:

   1. What activities has the Best Bits group carried out in recent times?
   How many of these had a total buy in from all group "members?". How many
   felt their opinions were "taken over" by  individuals in the Steering.
   2. Why question "leadership" and not "membership"?
   3. Does the request to "disclose any direct or indirect financial
   relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project where a
   US government agency is among the funders."  really mean what I am reading?
   I do Church Choir projects, Association of Bloggers of Cote d'Ivoire,
   GhanaBlogging,  Enough is Enough Nigeria, Adventist Development and Relief
   Agency etc.. and someone in Best Bits is asking me if any of these is
   funded by a government; US or otherwise?
   4. Are we supposing that the "Best Bits activities" of a Steering member
   is the main thing they do in their lives?

I will agree with CSO transparency and I believe in it. But I am thinking
that the question, at least the way it is framed, is coming in at a wrong
time, to the wrong group, under circumstances that are easily misconstrued.

My suggestion will be that we request people, as a measure to guarantee CS
indpendence, to disclose any possible conflict of interest, in the
framework of ACTIVITIES.  Opinion is a right, and should not be question.

One last question. In the just ended Bali IGF, I contributed as a Best
Bits  Steering person, and also:

   1. Contributed to Best Bits meetings
   2. Tweeting the #IGF2013 with my personal Twitter account of 5000+
   followers
   3. Did a podcast for law students on the need for online freedom
   4. Delivered a speech on opening ceremony on behalf of CSO
   stakeholdergroup
   5. Showed up and 8 am to do Orientation of new comers on Day 0
   6. Sat through the High Level Leaders Meeting
   7. Was a panelist on WS 171 on Gender, 354 on WSIS+10, 145 on Regional
   Coordination, 31 on Africa, and the Focus session on Inter-regional
   coordination.
   8. Was a remote participation moderator on 2 panels

If my participation (travel, accommodation, meals) were to have been paid
by  the government of Nigeria, Côte d'Ivoire, Azerbaijan, United States or
Al Qaeda..

Will that mean I would be less "Civil Society" than someone whose
participation 'see above' was paid for by ... errr Ford Foundation?

DISCLOSURE: I do not work for Best Bits. I work for  The World Wide Web
Foundation (For some weeks now). I have contributed in CSO circles in
Internet Governance/ Information Society since 2000. In WSIS days, funding
to some global south CSO participants came through  different sources,
passed through different channels and were managed by diverse
organisations. In the framework of the IGF:

FOSSFA - The Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa paid my
Nairobi bill

APC - Association for Progressive Communications paid my Baku bill.

NRO - Network of Internet Regional Registries paid my Bali bill.

Non of the above has been my employer at any point in time. And each has a
website where you can find out what they do and get an idea of where their
money comes from.

Best of the new week


Nnenna

====

PS/ Avri, are you good with grant writing? The type that US
government+consort require? You may just be the one a friend is looking
for!! :)


On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> "19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
> right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
> receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless
> of frontiers."
>
> I understand that in this text:
>
> - the "everyone" leads to a not achievable cohesion problem for Anriette,
> - that may result from the kind of "interference" Norbert would like to
> prevent.
> - Parminder addresses it with a simple solution: whoever you are, whatever
> your opinion make me trust they are not biased by a paid agenda.
>
> I disclosed as requested. I am favorable to a CS Oath as does the Olympic
> Committee which has a similar problem.
> jfc
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131110/8cce6877/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Sun Nov 10 10:14:50 2013
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:14:50 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for
 Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh131MH-oqC=QCpWvA=POcL6z3vfu0kbHqMbT7doRSk5n4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
 <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
 <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
 <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
 <20131110124021.E3FDD3287CC@a2knetwork.org>
 <CADFgh13bQ+VgOVas-WcKPnZeMW6s0s4_+-gtfozmmRSVmfnz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh131MH-oqC=QCpWvA=POcL6z3vfu0kbHqMbT7doRSk5n4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D0C110D1-168F-42D0-8780-45F6179CD1D8@arin.net>

On Nov 10, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com<mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:

NRO - Network of Internet Regional Registries paid my Bali bill.

And thank you (again) for being able to speak at session #145 "Importance of Regional
Coordination in Internet Governance"...

It is quite reasonable for an IGF session organizer (the NRO in this case) to help defray
travel costs for a panelist if need be; the alternative would definitely limit the range of
views available during these discussions.

FYI,
/John



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131110/d72525fb/attachment.htm>

From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Sun Nov 10 12:13:29 2013
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:13:29 +0200
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
 <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
 <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
 <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
 <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
 <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <20131110171329.GB29045@tarvainen.info>

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 09:12:03AM -0200, Carlos A. Afonso (ca at cafonso.ca) wrote:
> I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple:
> we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think
> all of these have Web portals. Anyone who needs to check on these issues
> regarding any of the participants in these cauci would just visit the
> corresponding institutional portal.
> 
> But no one is obliged to disclose certain infos -- one reason is of
> course the safety regarding a possibly adverse political environment
> where the organization legally resides. However, when we select
> coordinators for example, it would (again, my opinion) be relevant as
> part of the selection criteria to know about funding relationships.

That sounds eminently reasonable to me.

For myself, being in IRP steering committee, I can disclose that my
IGF trips have been supported by Jyväskylä university (where I work)
and Effi; in case of Bali I paid half of it myself (from my vacation
budget, as it were).

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
Vice president, Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi)
email tapani.tarvainen at effi.org
tel. +358-40-7293479


From kichango at gmail.com  Sun Nov 10 14:28:26 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:28:26 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for
 Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <D0C110D1-168F-42D0-8780-45F6179CD1D8@arin.net>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
	<54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
	<527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
	<527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
	<20131110124021.E3FDD3287CC@a2knetwork.org>
	<CADFgh13bQ+VgOVas-WcKPnZeMW6s0s4_+-gtfozmmRSVmfnz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADFgh131MH-oqC=QCpWvA=POcL6z3vfu0kbHqMbT7doRSk5n4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0C110D1-168F-42D0-8780-45F6179CD1D8@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-r_fi0qB+yYDXC8i=aHgQMVKWxShGvCHY3B-Zj9BV42Q@mail.gmail.com>

All,

This is one of those threads I start reading and then shake my head
wondering whether I should keep on reading. I stopped at some point but
wanted to offer some basic thoughts based on what I have read, and not
replying to anyone specifically.

#1 The initial request was made to BB and IRP steering committee members as
well as IGC co-coordinators, not every single member of CS.

#2 As a matter of principle, it is okay, in my humble opinion, for CS
groups to want to adopt a policy/procedure for funding disclosure or for
addressing conflict of interest issues, particularly for members in
leadership position.

#3 That procedure does not have to be carried out publicly on a discussion
list such as these ones --for, among other things, the safety reasons and
possible risks that have already been mentioned. A structure may be put in
place (NomCom?) to receive such statements.

#4 The said policy would not just apply to people affiliated to an
organization, be it CS or otherwise (so that the public would just need to
go check out their report and financial statement from their website.)
Individuals, too, may be concerned. For instance personally, I am not
currently affiliated to any CS org per se. Suppose overnight I start
showing up at all internet policy meetings around the globe, becoming
increasingly vocal to a point where I find myself thrown into some
leadership role (yes, sometimes that happens because people are ubiquitous
and vocal.) I think it's normal someone would ask: Who's backing Mawaki for
him to be able to attend all these meetings and become so visible? Is there
some agenda behind?

#5 It would certainly be wrong if this were to be done in the spirit of
_judging_ or even being _suspicious_ of anyone subject to the procedure.
And on that note, I must admit that was unfortunate to single out US
government --even if it was intended as an example in the context of the ad
for US fellowship forwarded initially (it didn't even come across that way,
sorry.)

#6 Rather if this were to be done properly, it should be in the spirit of
sending the signal that we, CS, have taken the trouble to check that there
is nothing wrong, inappropriate or questionable about the ability of the
people we designate to be the custodians of our collective or send out to
be our voice or defend our interests to effectively do so. And this is not
because we are, by default, suspicious of each other, but just a simple
question of good practice and common sense (charity begins at home) with
regard to transparency. Again, check back #3.

#7 Now I understand the committee that might be put in charge to receive
and assess funding disclosures (maybe conflict of interests statements, if
needed, may go public?) would need some solid guidelines and principles to
rigorously but fairly assess when does a case become an issue, from which
point a case become subject to question. That is where some substantive
work will need to be done if one decides to pursue this route. I suspect
there might not be one size fits all here in terms of same set of criteria
with their single definition applied with the same weight for everybody
whatever their position on the "power grid" or the power matrix, to use
Anja's construct.

#8 It is also my understanding that the nature of the organization at hand
and the stake involved in its business/mission are normally a significant
part of the rationale for implementing the kind of procedure we are talking
about. As much as I am fully for the principle of transparency and
disclosure (while not jeopardizing the safety of anyone) I recognize the
case still remains to be made about IGC needing to implement this policy
--just because I'm not really sure what IGC is at this point in time. We
are not even being asked anymore to nominate a slate of candidates for
anything, other organizations are. Alternatively, individuals among us are
being approached directly with the proposition to take on one role or
another. So what are we, IGC --just a discussion list? Maybe that question
is worth answering before going forward with this policy (as far as IGC is
concerned).

Last reflection, this conversation makes me think, with a smile, that there
are basically three ways for having money: i) you sell something, goods or
services; ii) you tax someone else; or iii) someone chooses to give you the
money for whatever reason, possibly including a service you didn't even set
out to sell. In CS we do at least a little bit of the three --through grant
proposals or consultancy, member dues (albeit with less dire consequences
than defaulting on your income tax), and fundraising or donations CS orgs
receive. But it looks like the latter category is what supports the most CS
advocacy activities. That makes you think twice about where we actually are
on the power map. Maybe there is some solace to be found in the fact that
many of the sources CS orgs get money from are also part of CS, to begin
with: private citizens who once were industrious enough and with enough
ingenuity to become wealthy and set up foundations or other charity orgs.
Short of that, CS would perhaps have to receive the bulk of its money from
the people who tax other people.

Best,

Mawaki
p.s. I neither represent nor speak for any other than myself. I have
nothing to declare at the CS customs... Seriously, I have no funding source
at this point.


On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>  On Nov 10, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   NRO - Network of Internet Regional Registries paid my Bali bill.
>
> And thank you (again) for being able to speak at session #145 "Importance
> of Regional
> Coordination in Internet Governance"...
>
>  It is quite reasonable for an IGF session organizer (the NRO in this
> case) to help defray
> travel costs for a panelist if need be; the alternative would definitely
> limit the range of
> views available during these discussions.
>
>  FYI,
> /John
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131110/ce84c7ce/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Nov 11 08:42:39 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:42:39 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
Message-ID: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca>

Dear people,

Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.

In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.

Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
-- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
requires periodic revisions.

The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:

------
72.	We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:

a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
stability and development of the Internet.

b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.

c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
institutions on matters under their purview.

d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
and technical communities.

e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.

f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
developing countries.

g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.

h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.

i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet governance processes.

j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.

k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.

l) Publish its proceedings.
------

It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
forum, not merely a sequence of events.

Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
have been basically ignored by the UN.

The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
expertises needed to carry out this challenge .

It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.

As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
(UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
revealed some worrying weaknesses .

The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
countries.

It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
attached in PDF]

The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
and the WSIS process is inevitable .

One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.

Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
below.

A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
suggestions:

------
Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
Observers

1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
responsibilities of all participants;

2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
Declaration of Principles;

3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;

4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;

5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
Enhanced Cooperation;

6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
in a top down manner;

7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;

8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;

9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
larger IGF community;

10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
Internet governance and management organizations;

11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
within their mandates;

12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
footing;

13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
participate in the IGF.

14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
------

In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.

On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:

------
- Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
working methods such as remote participation.

- Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.

- Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
affordable access for all stakeholders.

- The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
------

At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.

fraternal regards

--c.a.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary_of_the_responses_nov_2013.pdf
Type: application/x-download
Size: 324872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131111/85926b26/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tunis_agenda_information_society_EN.pdf
Type: application/x-download
Size: 249221 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131111/85926b26/attachment-0001.bin>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Nov 11 10:10:44 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:10:44 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <B5AA5D38-CB5D-406D-B8E5-D23252EF98C8@istaff.org>

On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).
> 
> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy".
> 
> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. 
> ...

Wolfgang - 
 
   I've been staring at the above paragraphs for several days, and have come to
   the conclusion that I agree in the abstract but not with some of the specifics...
 
   I _do_ agree that "there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communication, 
   coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes 
   early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into account that 
   different stakeholders have different but shared responsibilities)"  Furthermore,
   I believe that an Internet policy matter "clearing house", or (as Lee suggests, 
   staff capacity to provide that capability) might also be quite helpful, although
   the details of such may prove vexing.  (Jeremy's proposal is also an intriguing
   start here...)

   The area of less agreement would be in ability to distinguish Internet public policy 
   issues from Internet day-to-day operational issues, particularly when it comes to 
   judging these issues with respect to the existing Internet registry systems...   
   It is simply not possible for all issues to be considered as a political matter,
   otherwise every item of Internet operations of "critical Internet resources" would 
   be also a potential public policy issue, and the Internet would quickly bog down 
   with thousands of routine administrative tasks on hold, pending being cleared of 
   political implications...

   For example, the development of a schedule of DNS reserved names definitely has
   public policy implications, but once it has been established, then it allows 
   registry operations to proceed without having to send each and every individual 
   registration request within each subdomain to a body of public policy experts to 
   individually review and approve.  Similarly, policies for IP address management
   are developed in each of the regions (and there are indeed public policy aspects 
   to IP address policies); the subsequent implementation and routine operations per 
   those policies should not be a political matter (so long as there is fidelity in
   implementation and execution to the developed policies.)

   The actual boundary I refer to is not "political vs technical"; it's the policy 
   development (which needs to consider both technical and public policy aspects) 
   vs routine, day-to-day administrative and operational tasks (which must function
   independently but with fidelity to the developed policies)   This does not in any 
   way detract from your keen observation regarding the need for "bottom up enhanced 
   communication, coordination and collaboration"; I just want to make sure we don't
   lose the distinction of policy development vs policy implementation and execution.

Thanks for the thoughtful response!
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  Luckily, discussion of Internet cooperation matters 
              is a routine administrative task for me, otherwise these email would
              be held pending approval via a more formal development process...
               





From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Nov 11 10:16:44 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:16:44 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
In-Reply-To: <CABFybevMpiMTkTTaSkcQX3k_acORAb280ohry7XhDLj1Q2v3Pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <CABFybevMpiMTkTTaSkcQX3k_acORAb280ohry7XhDLj1Q2v3Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5280F4DC.2020701@cafonso.ca>

Grande Snehashish, the transcripts for the three days are attached as
plain text files. Have fun! I also copy to the Best Bits list.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 11/11/2013 12:36 PM, Snehashish Ghosh wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Are the transcripts from the 2nd Meeting of WGEC archived online?
> A link would be really helpful.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> Snehashish
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear people,
> 
>     Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
>     Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
>     just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
>     edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
>     Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
> 
>     In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
>     advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
>     phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
>     taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
>     suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
> 
>     Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
>     PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
>     -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
>     not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
>     and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
>     requires periodic revisions.
> 
>     The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
>     should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
> 
>     ------
>     72.     We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive
>     process,
>     to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
>     for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>     Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
> 
>     a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
>     governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
>     stability and development of the Internet.
> 
>     b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
>     cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
>     discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
> 
>     c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
>     institutions on matters under their purview.
> 
>     d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
>     this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
>     and technical communities.
> 
>     e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
>     availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
> 
>     f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
>     and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
>     developing countries.
> 
>     g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
>     bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
>     recommendations.
> 
>     h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
>     countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
> 
>     i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
>     principles in Internet governance processes.
> 
>     j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
> 
>     k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
>     of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
> 
>     l) Publish its proceedings.
>     ------
> 
>     It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
>     First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
>     forum, not merely a sequence of events.
> 
>     Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
>     generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
>     have been basically ignored by the UN.
> 
>     The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
>     mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
>     have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
>     is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
>     on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
>     expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
> 
>     It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
>     might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
>     might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
> 
>     As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
>     cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>     (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
>     General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
>     revealed some worrying weaknesses .
> 
>     The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
>     production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
>     were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
>     society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
>     business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
>     countries.
> 
>     It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
>     the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
>     APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
>     the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
>     cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
>     attached in PDF]
> 
>     The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
>     the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
>     Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
>     Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
>     significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
>     possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
>     difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
>     group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
>     ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
>     perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
>     and the WSIS process is inevitable .
> 
>     One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
>     are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
>     necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
>     to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
>     the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
> 
>     Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
>     process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
>     below.
> 
>     A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
>     interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
>     possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
>     easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
>     the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
>     consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
>     suggestions:
> 
>     ------
>     Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
>     Observers
> 
>     1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
>     reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
>     document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
>     responsibilities of all participants;
> 
>     2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
>     by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
>     were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
>     Declaration of Principles;
> 
>     3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
>     and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
> 
>     4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
>     in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
> 
>     5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
>     Enhanced Cooperation;
> 
>     6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
>     as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
>     in a top down manner;
> 
>     7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
>     internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
>     into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
> 
>     8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
>     defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
> 
>     9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
>     are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
>     Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
>     larger IGF community;
> 
>     10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
>     IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
>     Internet governance and management organizations;
> 
>     11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
>     IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
>     within their mandates;
> 
>     12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
>     process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
>     stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
>     footing;
> 
>     13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
>     participate in the IGF.
> 
>     14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
>     stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
>     to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
>     ------
> 
>     In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
>     essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
>     cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
>     these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
>     processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
>     generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
> 
>     On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
>     governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
> 
>     ------
>     - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
>     all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
>     governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
>     working methods such as remote participation.
> 
>     - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
>     through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
>     programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
> 
>     - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
>     consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
>     affordable access for all stakeholders.
> 
>     - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
>     empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
>     that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
>     online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
>     mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
>     ------
> 
>     At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
>     help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
> 
>     fraternal regards
> 
>     --c.a.
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
 6 November, 2013
 Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
 10:00 a.m.
 Geneva, Switzerland
 
 (Gavel).
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Ladies and gentlemen.
 (Gavel).
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Good morning.  Can you please take your seats.
 I would like to start in one minute.  Thank you.
 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to the second meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in the Commission on Science and Technology for Development.  I hope we are going to have a fruitful meeting during the three days, as proof was we had the last time, which was much shorter but very efficient.
 I would like to greet the remote participants.  I hope they are with us.  And I would like to (indiscernible) to be members of the group.  I would like to greet the observers who are with us.
 As I told you, this is the second meeting of the working group.  And as usual, meetings start with the mandate.  Probably you know it by heart --  (beeping) -- but it is always useful to reiterate what the mandate of the group.
 The mandate from the United Nations General Assembly resolution, resolution 67/195/2012, which invites the Chair of the CSTD to establish a working group on enhanced cooperation -- (beeping) -- to examine the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation through seeking, compiling, and reviewing inputs from all member states and all other stakeholders and to make recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate.
 The second part is issue a report to the CSTD in 2014.  Looking at the mandate, I think we are in a relatively good position.  We have already fulfilled the first part that we were seeking and compiling the input.  And we had a summary which was sent out to the members of the group and which has been posted on the Web site.
 Next one, please.
 Just a day before yesterday, I attended a presentation on a presentation where the owner and the CEO of the software explained to us that PowerPoint is always full of bullet points and full of text, and I think he was right.  Unfortunately, my presentation had already been written at that time so I managed to get one picture in it which shows the process we are going through.  
 So we have talked about the United Nations General Assembly's resolution.  The working group has been established.  We seek the inputs from the stakeholders.  And right now, we have to review the inputs.  And, finally, we have to give some recommendations to the CSTD next year with the view that there would be a resolution passed to the ECOSOC.  And, finally, it goes back to the United Nations General Assembly.
 What I expect from this meeting, I expect that we will respect the mandate, and I will make my best that it is going to be like that.  I would like to call your attention that we are a group constituted of all stakeholders; that is, a multistakeholder approach.  And last time I think we have managed to establish the mutual trust, and it was very useful.  That was the reason the meeting was really successful.
 The meeting -- last time we decided to have allow observers to the meeting, and we also decided that ECOSOC rules apply.  In this meeting, we have observers.  We have remote participation.  We have audio streaming, if I'm not wrong.  And, hopefully, we have scribes who are going to give us transcripts of the meeting.  So all the promises were kept we have made last time, and I hope this will contribute to the success of this meeting.
 Naturally, we have to keep in mind that we have some constraints.  We have time constraints.  We have resources, which are very scarce.  And we have the -- I was really afraid that we have constraints as far as the venue's concerned, but right now I'm happy to see there are still some seats which are available.  And, hopefully, the members of the group will arrive.  I have already received some minutes from some members about late arrival, so I hope they will make it to Geneva.  And I think they will contribute also to the success of our meeting.
 Next one.
 We had the first physical meeting last May, on the 30th of May and the 31st of May.  We decided to have further meetings, three days each.  This is the second meeting we have.  And based on the results we achieve today, we may have one or two more meetings.  It is up to you.
 In case we have two meetings, I would suggest to have it in January and February.  But we are going to discuss it later.  
 However, I have to make my report by the end of February, beginning of March and submit the recommendations hopefully to the CSTD in May.  So I'm very optimistic, as usual.  I count on you for the cooperation, and I hope that we're going to achieve good results in a very particular period we are in now.
 But at the same time, I have to tell you that I think we are in a privileged position.  We are in a position where we can contribute to something which is very important, and I would like to call your attention to this fact that we should take this meeting in this spirit.  We are privileged to be in this group and to be in this discussion.
 You may recall that during the first meeting, we had a very long discussion about the agenda, the procedural issues.  And we had breakout groups led by Brazil and India.  In the breakout groups, we identified categories and the suggested questions.  I think this approach was very useful.  This was really very useful.  It allowed us to have very open discussions, and then we got back to the plenary.  We managed to finalize the questions in a very short while and the result of it was the questionnaire which you know by heart, I think.  So I have to emphasize again, that the first meeting, we had excellent collaboration, and I hope that we are going to continue this way.
 As I mentioned, we agreed at the meeting to have all the facilities, that is, all the streaming, the transcript, and we agreed with the remote participation.  And the real result was the questionnaire which has been posted and sent out to the members of the group.
 Next.  What are the resources for our second meeting?  Basically I think -- (feedback in the audio).
 Okay.  So this is not the resource oddly.
 Well, first of all, the first resource is the questionnaire itself, which is more important for the contributions from the respondents.  You may note that the responses were grouped by questions at one time and then they were grouped by respondents as well.
 We found that we had about 1,000-page contributions, which you can't handle in a meeting like that.  The idea came that eventually we should have a summary of the responses and the summary has been prepared and has been sent out to you and also has been posted on the Web site.
 I give the link to the Web site on the slide.  And probably in case you have difficulties, which I think you may have difficulties finding still things on the CSTD Web site, so here's the link.  And probably if you still have difficulties, you can come to the secretariat and they will help you.
 Next slide.
 So the questionnaire was made up 18 questions.  One was about the stakeholder itself.  One question was a quite open question in case we missed something.  And, basically, it reflected the consensus of the working group on topics relevant to the enhanced cooperation.  
 We had an extended deadline, which was the 17th of September.  I have extended it, I think, twice or three times and -- next one.  In the end, we have 69 responses.  The 69 responses, you can see the distribution of these responses.  We had 29 governments, 23 civil society, 11 technical community and academia and eight businesses.  It's -- I leave it to you to judge whether this is enough or it's few.  That's what we have.  I think the responses gave us a very, very rich input for future work.
 After analysis of the responses, I suggested to group the responses.  That is, in five groups to facilitate all future work.  In group A, they are the replies related to the implementation of the Tunis Agenda and these are questions 2 and 3.  Group B replies related to public policy issues and possible mechanisms, questions 4, 8 and 9.  In group C, we have replies to stakeholders, questions, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 17.  In group D, we have replies to developing countries which are questions 10 and 15.  And, finally, in group E, we have replies to barriers for participation in enhanced cooperation which are questions 11, 12, 13 and 16.
 What are we going to do in the second meeting?  Well, first of all, we have to agree on the agenda and the procedural questions.  After having agreed on that, probably we should identify and agree on topics and categories; that is, the grouping I've suggested to you.  And we have to discuss responses to the questionnaire.
 During the meeting, we are going to create a rolling document which will reflect the discussions we are having now.  And to my best hope, on the third day, we may start drafting recommendations.  I know this is very ambitious, but we have to do it.  And, of course, there are some other issues to be discussed as we decide on the date of the next meeting.
 What I suggested is for the time management, we have all meetings starting in the morning at 10:00 and we have the meeting in the morning up until 1:00 in the afternoon.  In between, I would suggest you have a segment for observers, a 15-minute segment for observers that they may take the floor and give any observations they have and then we will have a coffee break, also 15 minutes.  So probably it will be kind of flexible, but that's what I suggest.
 We will have a lunch break from 1:00 to 3:00.  And in the afternoon, we will have a kind of similar arrangement.  That is, we will have our discussions and we will have an observer segment from 4:15 to 4:30 followed by again a coffee break, and we shall work until 6:00 in the evening.
 Frankly speaking, I don't intend to go beyond 6:00.  Naturally, if it's needed, of course, we can do it.  But I have been reminded that the room is available up until 7:00, 7:30.  But I don't believe that we will use this time.  It's my best hope that we're not going to do that.
 So, basically, these were the introductory remarks.  As for the observers, we have to respect the rules of the ECOSOC.  That is, member states who are not members of the working group can take the floor first and other observers can follow.  But I would like to remind you that this is a working group.  We came here to work.  We came here not to make statements but to make recommendations.
 And in this spirit -- and I think you share this approach, I sincerely hope you do -- so I would like to encourage you to contribute in this sense.
 So after that, I would suggest that we go directly to the agenda.  And probably you have it.  Can you share it with us?
 Thank you.  So, basically, the agenda reflects what I said in my introductory remarks, including the time management.  It's more general than what I think we should be doing.  It doesn't talk about the grouping, but I really encourage you that we should work in this way; that is, take the groups of questions and discuss them in groups by topics.
 So I ask you if the agenda is acceptable.  Yes, Marilyn.  Before you take the floor, I would like to ask you to identify yourself always shortly.
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you, Chair.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm one of the participants from the business community.  And greetings, all colleagues.  
 It is a pleasure to be back together.  My only comment -- And I want to thank you for the preparation both that you have put together and the time you've dedicated, Chair, but also to the secretariat.  My only comment -- actually it is twofold.  One is perhaps as we get into the discussion, we may find the need to flexibly adjust the agenda.
 Some of the questions, responses may take more detailed discussion than others.  And so I'd like to ask for that.
 And then, secondly, if we could ask the secretariat to make your presentation -- to send it out to the full list.  It is a bit challenging to find the information on the Web site, and it would be great to have your presentation and any other documents e-mailed out to the full list so that we could keep in touch on documents that are presented in the room.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Marilyn.  Naturally, the agenda will be flexible.  We will follow whatever is the natural way of discussion.
 As for my presentation, I have made the last update this morning.  Probably it was about 9:30.  So -- but you will have the presentation, and I think it's already on the Web site.  And to find things on the CSTD Web site, I would go with it is not a challenge but a kind of test of ability of how you manage to get around.  It's really to test your capabilities.
 So having said that, any other comment on the agenda?  Do we agree that we go by the way I suggested; that is, grouping the questions as they were?  Okay, in that case the agenda is accepted.
 (Gavel).
 One thing I want to add, I mentioned that in the first meeting, we worked in a mixed way.  By that I mean we worked in one part of the meeting in plenary mode and then we had the breakout groups.  I would suggest that we should do the same way depending how our discussion is going to proceed to discuss questions in breakout groups, then come to the plenary, and have the whole plenary involved in the further discussions.  We shall see how it goes, but I think this was a very efficient way of doing things.  The breakout groups won't discuss different issues.  They will discuss the same issues.  And they will probably come to some kind of conclusion, and these conclusions can be merged.  And that is the idea.  But given the time and especially the amount of work we have to do, I think we should find always the best way to proceed so that is the way I suggest.
 So I really suggest to go straight to group Number 1 and attack the questions which are in group Number 1.  That is Questions 2 and 3.
 I would give you some two minutes to go through Questions Number 2 and 3 and look through the analysis of these questions and eventually, if you wish, you can go to the responses as well.  This allows us to solve some kind of technical problem we have with the audio streaming.  Please take your time and look into the Questions 2 and 3 and we shall resume in two minutes.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: So I can see that you are ready to discuss questions 2 and 3.  So just to remind you, Question Number 2, "What do you think is the significance, purpose, and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda?"  And Question Number 3, "To what extent has or hasn't enhanced cooperation been implemented?"  So the floor is yours.
 So based on the input we have, and based on the analysis which has been provided to you, I would like to ask you to do your contributions but try and restrict yourself to what I said in my initial remarks, to the mandate we have, to the agreed text we had, and try to discuss in this way.  Yes, Brazil.
 >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all colleagues.  First of all, I want to congratulate you personally for the amount of work invested and for the document which is provided to us.  As you have indicated, you had the challenge to deal with so many contributions and the document, the analyses of the responses I think is a very good basis for our work.  Of course, there are some notions, some nuances that are not captured into this document and I -- I understand there will be plenty of opportunity to come back to some things that are missing there from the perspective of participants would be important.  However, I think it really captures most of the essence of what we should be discussing today and in our next meetings.
 The point I want to make is that I think that maybe we should, on the basis of the compilation we have before us, try to identify what are the core issues that require discussion among us.  Even taken into account there are different approaches to the way the questions are framed, I feel there is a large degree of consensus around some issues, the recognition of progress made, on the recognition of the value of working a multistakeholder environment. Depending on the participants, the emphasis is put on -- more on the aspect of having a half glass that is full or half glass that is empty.  But I think there is some large degree of consensus that we have moved forward, to a large extent, since 2005.  But I can also feel that even for those who agree that enhanced cooperation, to some extent, is already taking place and that maybe do not have -- do not need new mechanisms but need to -- even for these little things that we need to improve (typing) I think there is one notion we should maybe discuss, what we need to improve on existing mechanisms and on the other hand, as I go through the responses, on the other hand we have a group of participants that say that something else should be there.  So I think maybe decided to -- maybe basic notion should be worked around in order to implement the mandate we have to provide advice on how to fully implement -- fully implement from the part of the conclusion what we have and if needed to come up with something else that would add to this.  I think we should -- as you, Chair, have indicated, not lose time around issues that are consensus among us.  The recognition of the multistakeholder model, the value of what we have achieved so far.  That we have tried to focus on things that have emerged as differences and try to elaborate, if possible, to come to some consensus on these.  Otherwise, to explicitly spell out what are the differences so we can come up with some meaningful document for the report.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador.  I understand what you're saying.  How I would like to lead this group is first come to questions where we do have common understanding because in my mind we have to give them some kind of mutual trust and mutual understanding and then we can discover the differences.  So if we agree that on some issues -- and I hope there are really many issues that we agree on -- then we can discuss those ones which we do not agree on and we can come to some kind of common understanding and try to understand each other, what we don't think is right, what we don't think is -- hasn't -- which hasn't been implemented.  So I really encourage you first to come to this way of building this mutual trust and further building the mutual trust.  But at the end of the day, I think we do agree that we have to come up with recommendations in the spirit you mentioned, how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation.  I do agree with that.  Probably I have a kind of slightly different approach.  I would like to build on the consensual issues first, and it would give us some -- let's face it, good feeling and then we can build on that.
 India, please.
 >>INDIA: Thank you very much, Chair, and to a very good morning to all colleagues in the room.  And it's good to see so many familiar faces.  We've sat through a fairly good amount of time last time in the last meeting.  I think at the outset allow me, Mr. Chair, to formally congratulate you on behalf of my delegation for your commitment and your -- I would use the word "leadership" in guiding the process.
 The effort that has gone into so far in preparing a kind of questionnaire followed by responses received and thereafter a report has been prepared, a summary, I think you have been very careful in using the word "summary" rather than saying -- attributing any particular notion to (indiscernible) or otherwise it is responses that have been received.  I think it is good.
 Firstly, the approach that you recommended, we fully support this.  And also I'd like to acknowledge one colleague's recommendation that to keep the agenda a little flexible so that we place it according to the rhythm and so the progress we would be making as we go along.  So these are the two, I think, pillars on which we can proceed.
 Thirdly, just a quick comment on India's responses and certain changes that we have reflected towards the last (indiscernible).  Just to inform colleagues in the room that with regards to questions 6 and 8, we of course submitted after the due date, just a recognition to be -- to be made in this room that India has data it supplied on Question Number 6 and 8, which we have forwarded to the Secretariat and we hope that we will bring to the discussion forum as we go along.  That's the first point I would like to make.
 Coming to the replies that have been received as far as the report that has been submitted, I think it's important at the outset to make certain recognition of the fact that it is a fairly small sample of responses that we have received, which is known by the numbers, the very fact that there are so many responses only.  But the -- the beauty of the responses as we see it is that they cover a large and entire diversity of opinions that we -- we have been hearing and we have been -- we have heard in the earlier discussions.  So we have the advantage of reflecting on those opinions as we go along.  At the same time, I think -- actually a particular direction which responses have given I think we need to be slightly cautious on that.  So we will be making the distinction as we go along, because in the agenda you have designed that we move towards, based on the responses that we have received, we would make steps forward, next steps forward.  I guess that is the right way to do things, but again, with this little caution, that we would like -- at least my delegation would like to bear in mind which we thought it's good to let it be known.
 As regard to the response 2 and 3, which is to the five categories that you have proposed, I think if we could respond to these five categories of questions, I think we would have covered the entire spectrum to which we have recommended -- the desire which we have started we will achieve.  We fully endorse this five categories approach and thereby now you focus on Question 2 and 3.  Again, from our perspective, we have categorically said not much progress has been made, but when we said this it is specific to paragraph 68 and 69 of the Tunis Agenda.  But there is recognition certainly that the very fact that we have been able to look at things starting in 2005 till now, it is -- there's no denying of this fact that there is an enhanced cooperation already taking place.  Again, at what levels?  There are many stakeholders in this process and as a representative of the government in this working group, we find that it is lacking, to a large extent.  And there is recognition to this fact, and again, going through this process of looking at Tunis Agenda as a basis.  So with that in mind, I think we -- we would like to see a kind of -- a kind of a determination at this point in time.  Because if you say that we made progress and we achieved everything, then the rest of the questions have no relevance in this room.  I mean, let's face it.  I think we need to be realistic and we need to be practical in our own approach.  So I do agree with our distinguished ambassador from Brazil who said that it's a half glass -- half full or half empty, but at the same time, yes, there is a recognition that there's a gap and we need to see what gap's are there and what, perhaps, would be the most appropriate recommendation that we can make.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India.  I'm really grateful for your remarks.  One point I want to emphasize that we have taken the sample input, and some inputs have arrived late, but it doesn't prevent us to work, taking into consideration the replies we received.  And naturally at the end of the day, as I always said, we have to do the work, the bulk of the work.  And you can contribute naturally the way you would like to.  And you can always express your views in the way you like to.  So this is only a basis, the input, but the real work is going to be done here.
 And as for the Questions 2 and 3, whether the glass is full half or full empty, I'm always optimistic and I say it's full half.  So let's fill the other half.  Let's work in this way.  I can see United States and then Parminder.
 >>UNITED STATES: Thank you very much, Chairman.  This is, as you say, the United States.  On behalf of my delegation I would be want to congratulate you for taking the -- for taking the daunting task of looking at a record of something like 1,000 pages and summarizing it to 25 pages.  This is -- we were -- as I say, we offer our thanks.
 We had some of the same concerns and -- or perhaps observations is the way to put it, as the ambassador from Brazil and the last speaker from India.  And by that, I would just summarize it in this way, that we recognize that there are challenges before us in terms of the work of this group.  We recognize at the same time we have a very useful and helpful summary that identifies topics of real concern.  We agree with the Brazilian ambassador, if we've understood it correctly, that not everything is captured in the -- in the 25-page summary, and that it's even fair to say that some things are missing.  And I would just join hands with colleagues in wanting to make sure that we have a record, if you will, a summary, if you will, that represents, I think as Brazil put it, the core interests.  I think in our words, the priority interest of countries and regions so that as we move to develop recommendations we are well-informed as to what countries and entities are thinking, what they think is good and what they need.
 So Chairman, just to offer our support in whatever way we can support putting that information together so that we are -- that we are -- that we have a strong foundation for reliable recommendations.  We do have some ideas, but I'll stop right there and just offer our thanks to you and to join with other colleagues and recognize that this is a very helpful first step.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  You may remember that when I sent out the analysis of the questions, in my e-mail I mentioned that this is definitely a document which is not meant to replace the original contributions in the first -- it is not meant to be the only input.  It is just to help with the further work.  And I think it might be quite useful to streamline.  I saw Parminder and Sweden.  Sweden was first?  Okay, Sweden.
 >>SWEDEN: Thank you.  Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to the Secretariat for all the hard work.  It has really been a mixed pleasure to go through all those pages.  Those first that have not only waited for the summary but also that have read all the responses, but I think mostly it has been a pleasure because of the very well-thought answers and the wide range of opinions that are reflected in those answers.  So we're very encouraged by that.  We also obviously recognize, as stated by others, that this does not maybe reflect everyone's opinion.  There is a limited number of answers, but we also would like to echo what was said by India, that it does at least give a very wide range of answers and we think that that is very good as a basis to start our work here today.
 Also, I would like to echo what was said by the Brazilian ambassador, that we think when we have read through these answers that it's quite encouraging to see that there are a lot of areas that we have consensus on, and we agree with the Chairman's approach that we should try to focus maybe first on those areas and then as a second step we should of course also try to see if we can find a convergence in the areas where there are outstanding issues.  And I think also, it's important that we keep in mind when we discuss these issues, particularly maybe Question 2 and 3, that we have different interpretations of the concept of enhanced cooperation, and it's important that we respect the fact that we have different interpretations.  I think that's the best basis we can have to move the work forward.  But again, thank you for all your hard work and looking forward to working with everyone here.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden.  Parminder.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair.  I'm Parminder Jeet Singh from India, IT for change.  And good morning to everybody.  And thank you, Chair and Secretariat, for putting together this excellent summary.  And I heard observations that it does not capture everything which was always never possible, but I think what we have here is a basis to work on, a certain amount of categorizations which can then be filled, and then I think agreement categories initially is more possible and easier to work on and as we progress I would suggest that we do try to make categories of things and agree on categories first.  And once you -- because categories are easier to agree on rather than specific viewpoints.  And I also agree with India that these five categories which you have bunched the questions under look like a good way for us to work on rather than the questions one by one.  As we agree on categories and then move categories to certain recommendations.  And now I come to the questions under consideration which is 2 and 3.  I think on 2, whether it has been fully implemented or not, I think people have exhausted their responses and there are all kinds and I would take a message of values view that.  Let's focus on the fact that there is an agreement that's not fully implemented and talk about what are the gaps and that is kind of a consensus, that there is something which needs to be done rather than going back and forth.  And agree whether it's fully implemented or not.  And the gap part of it, what needs to be -- what needs to be done to fully implement what we do here and then remove other things out and that is something for us to work on.  The fact that we all agree.  And the response, there are public participations which need to be addressed which are not being addressed and that fact remains, and that is the focus of our work here today.
 And on the second question which is about the scope and the purposes, again, being tactical and going to the Tunis Agenda, I can see that again, categories is important and Tunis Agenda gives two or three categories.  It says that the general public policy issues, there are public policy issues connected to critical Internet resources and there's a third basket which enhanced cooperation doesn't cover which is the day-to-day operations and these three baskets are there.  And once you know there are three baskets, three areas, then this is something which Tunis Agenda has and I don't think is very controversial.  And these categories are made without specifically committing to any view on -- under each you could possibly make progress.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder.  I can hear agreement, or partial agreement, on the categories we have, the groupings we have.  I could also hear that probably, you know, we should sometime fall back to the Tunis Agenda, which naturally we do.  However, we should also respect the mandate and we should discuss what is in the mandate, and I don't really think we should go beyond, unless we have some modification from the General Assembly end of this year.  
 Having said that, are there any other contributions on these issues?  I would remind you that we are discussing first matter issues go by the groups I suggested and second, in case we do, then which I think we had some kind of consensus but it's -- it may be a good way to discuss these issues, by groups, and if it is accepted, then we go by group 1, and we have Question Number 2 and 3.  So I would like to hear your opinion on these two issues.  Grouping is acceptable to all of us?  Saudi Arabia.
 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Good morning, colleagues.  First, thank the secretariat for the work that has been done and to facilitate our hard work.  And we support the way forward to the meeting.  
 I mean, with regard to question 2 and 3, I mean, the responses shows there's -- it is implemented, (inaudible), it is not implemented very well.  We look forward to the output of this meeting, I mean, to come up with a recommendation to fully implement the mandate of the Tunis Agenda (indiscernible).
 One more comment, that the Saudi's response is the government's response by CITC.  So I mean, if we can update it that it is the Saudi government.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Saudi Arabia.  It is going to be done.
 Yes, Virat.  
 >> VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Again, on my behalf and on behalf of the business, a big thanks to the secretariat and to yourself for arranging the text in the manner that you have done.  It is quite spectacular to see a thousand pages down into 27, 26, depending how printouts have been taken or copies have been seen at.
 I just want to make one point about a general comment which is just as the delegate from India suggested we should leave it to discuss at a later stage on where we are going in terms of progress, et cetera, even though there are some basic agreements that are emerging right now, it would be helpful to also keep our mind open to while agreeing on categories that you have recommended in general, that some questions at some stage might need to move or partially move across categories.  And if we can keep that flexibility as a principle in mind just as we would keep ourselves flexible towards the movement of -- in attempt to draft recommendations towards the end of this meeting.  I think that would be helpful just so that we don't have it cast in concrete in the first one hour.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  I think this was a very useful remark.  And, naturally, I don't think everything is cast in concrete.  So during the discussions, naturally, we will find that some issues may belong to more than one group, and we shall bring back these issues.  Of course, we are going to be quite flexible as we did in the previous working group, and that's what we're going to do right now with your agreement.
 Any other contributions regarding groups, grouping, the approach we are taking and more concretely Group Number 1, Questions Number 2 and 3?
 It may be still too early.  There's a remote participant.  Yes, we are waiting for your intervention.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Thank you, Joy Liddicoat here.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Hello, Joy.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Hello.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  And thank you, colleagues, for the introductory remarks.  I also wanted to thank the secretariat for organizing this meeting and also to (indiscernible) in relation to the agenda announce that there are a number of remote participants, and we would ask on behalf of them, that those in the room do speak clearly and slowly so that the transcription and audio can catch their wide words.  And also that if the group determines some group discussion is appropriate that we have some way to facilitate -- think about how to facilitate and ensure remote participation of the working group members.
 And I thank you, Chair, for your indulgence with the technicalities on that.
 Secondly, in relation to the summary and the submissions, I wanted to just acknowledge all of the submissions that have been received, and especially those from civil society, and to note that the summary, while it intends to catch both (indiscernible) and categories, I think it is clear that the summary is not -- it has been talked about a thousand pages of submissions.  And there are some (indiscernible) for submissions. so I would ask that we refer to the submissions themselves and all of the work that's gone into those submissions by focusing on those and resisting the temptation to refer to the summary itself.  
 Particularly, I notice that there are some submissions which have not been cited in the summary, for example.  Thank you.  Those are my initial remarks.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Joy.  Well, you reminded me of one of the obligations, that is, I didn't thank all those who have contributed to the work by answering the questionnaire.  So I acknowledge all the work which has been done.
 So the breakout groups, I'm having also some concerns about the participation -- the remote participations, so I have to make some kind of decisions as far as the efficiency of our work versus the extent of participations.  Probably the issue wouldn't come up until tomorrow afternoon or Friday morning.  So we shall sort it out amongst ourselves.  But we don't have to forget that the main task ahead of us is to give recommendations.  And that is the -- what is in the mandate.  So, eventually, we may have some restrictions -- technical restrictions from participations remotely.  But I promise you that in the plenary, everything goes back to normal.
 As for the late submissions, naturally, we had to set limits and we had to deal with submissions which came within the extended target dates.  So I fully agree that all submissions are extremely valuable, but we had to set some kind of time limit to consider submissions in the summary itself.  It doesn't exclude them, however, to be discussed here but to be considered by this group.
 Any other contributions?  Yes, ISOC.
 >> ISOC:  Thank you, Chair.  Allow me to start by commending the work of the secretariat.  It is a remarkable work and extremely useful.  I think the report is comprehensive and certainly offers a very good basis for our discussion.
 I would note that as expected the document mirrors a various positions on enhanced cooperation and multistakeholderism and this is not a surprise.  However, there seems to be consensus on the fact that enhanced cooperation is already underway in some forms or another.  There is room for improvement, of course, but progress was made since 2005 both in terms of enhancing cooperation between intergovernmental organizations and governments but also in terms of developing working relationships, trusted working relationships, among all stakeholder groups including civil society, business and the technical community.
 And I think this is very positive and encouraging.  It is a very positive trend on which we can work.
 Another important consensus is remarkable around the value of the existing decentralized Internet ecosystem.  And that came clearly through the reports that you shared and that the IGF, including national and regional IGFs, have a key role to play in furthering enhanced cooperation in the future.
 Overall, I think in terms of terminology, in terms of methodology, it is important for our group to build on areas where we can identify common ground and consensus such as the consensus I just described.  And I'll just conclude by saying that the technical community is looking forward to working with all its colleagues towards a positive outcome.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  I can see no one asking for the floor.  So can I conclude that we agreed on the way -- the approach I suggested?
 Yes, Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Sorry, Chair.  Marilyn Cade.  But would you now turn to the observers then for their comments before we conclude on this topic?  Is that how we're going to proceed so we hear from observers before we move to new topics?
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   We are not going to conclude on the topic.  We are going to conclude on the approach we are going to work.  I will ask the observers after we agreed on the approach.  So can I conclude that we agree on the approach?  Okay.
 And having said that, we have already discussed point Number 1 or Group Number 1 with Questions 2 and 3.  But I don't think we have concluded on that.  So now I turn to observers, if they have any comments.  Please be brief in case you take the floor and identify yourself when you take the floor.
 Anyone from the observers who would like to comment?  Yes.
 >> MATTHEW SHEARS:  Thank you.  Thank you, Chair.  It is a pleasure to be here.  I just thought it would be useful for everybody if, perhaps, also, in my case, I introduce myself so you're aware of who are the observers are.  
 My name is Matthew Shears.  I am the director for Global Internet Policy and Human Rights with the Center of Democracy and Technology.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:  Thank you.  Yes?
 >> Thank you, Chair.  I would just like to follow what Matthew said.  I'm here on behalf of Global Partners, an Internet policy organization based in the United Kingdom.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.
 >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON:  I'll just follow the pattern.  I'm Sam Dickinson.  I was a member on the last CSTD working group on IGF improvements, and I'm a freelance Internet governance consultant.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  In case we don't have any other intervention, I suggest to have the coffee break now.  It's well-deserved.  And probably after coffee break, we come back at quarter to 12:00.  So this time I'm going to be to be very generous.  We are going to have half-an-hour coffee break.  But, please, make sure that during the coffee break, you work.  You have the important conversations and discuss the issues.  Thank you.  So we come back at quarter to 12:00.
 [ Break ]
 (Gavel).
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being on time.  Please take your seat.
 So good morning again.  I have one small announcement.  We have a box here, and I would like you to put your business card.  I'm told by the secretariat that unfortunately there's no prize at the end of the meeting and there's no drawing and you are not going to win anything.  But you are kindly requested to put your business card for the record.
 Frankly, I would have liked to have some prize, but anyway...
 So I hope you had a very pleasant coffee break and during the coffee break you had opportunity to discuss the issues we have had before the break.  And I would like to resume the meeting by saying that we have agreed on the approach, that we are going to discuss the issues by groups.  Naturally, the groups aren't rigid, so the questions in the groups may be reclassified or some parts of them may be reclassified to other groups, but it is really up to us.
 I have also made clear that the bulk of the work is going to be done here, meaning that in case you think you have made some contributions and you think to change or modify or to update it, probably you can do it by eventually distributing a room paper.  I don't think that this is the time to do it on the Web site.
 But I would like to emphasize again that we shall take all the considerations into account and it will be done during the meeting.  So this is -- I think it is quite important.  It's our task to give the recommendations.
 So having said that, let's go back to our work.  We have started the review of the first group and the two questions in the first group.  I concluded that there was a kind of general feeling about the glass being half empty or half full.
 As I told you, I tend to be of the opinion to be on the positive side, and let's say it's half full and let's discuss how to make it completely full.
 Any observations on questions 2 and 3 or any other observation on what we have discussed up till now?  Good.  We are going at a very good pace.
 So I suggest, in that case, that we go to group 2 and I leave you some time to go through the questions we have in group 2.  I believe probably an additional five minutes will be enough for you to go through and to have your ideas and your contributions prepared for the group.
 So I give you five minutes and we start discussing group 2 and the questions in group 2.
 (Silence).
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  I believe you have had time to review what we are going to talk about, question 4, 8 and 9.  And I have been informed that Joy Liddicoat wants to take the floor.
 Joy, the floor is yours, remote participant.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Thank you, Peter.  I just want to make a point about the submission summary which we have been reading.  I just want to note and put on the record that there is an error in the summary, particularly the first one on page 4 which purports to cite the Association for Progressive Communication's submission.  It is actually citing the Best Bits submission.  And, in fact, all of the APC references in the document appear to be to that Best Bits' submission.  And I'm just very concerned about that because their submissions are actually different and make different points.
 I also note that in reference to a (indiscernible) submission here which does not appear in the list of submissions but it appears to be a government submission.  So I'm just a little bit concerned about the focus of our discussions being reliant on this document.  And I'm wondering how we might deal with that.  One option is to deal with it as a document in the room, not as a matter of record.  But I think some guidance from the other working group members on this point.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Joy.  It is very useful.  Probably this is not the only error we have in it.  And thank you for pointing out these errors.  I'm sure this will be corrected in a very short while.
 As I said at the outset, this is a kind of attempt to streamline and downsize the contributions to help us to work, taking into account there may be some errors in it.
 And I made it also clear that this is not -- it doesn't replace the contributions that we received.  Our discussions will be based on the contributions and, more importantly, on the work we are going to do here or remotely you may contribute.
 But I promise you errors pointed out will be corrected.
 ITU.
 >>ITU:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  So I just wanted to highlight a paragraph on page 4, A special remark from a civil society organization on ideals, activities and its collaboration regarding plenipotentiary resolution 101, 102 -- there was a mistake there -- 102 and 133.  
 We would just like to highlight ITU was working with the organizations listed and many of the organizations active in the area in the spirit of the plenipotentiary resolution.  And we do report annually to our governing body's council and also other bodies on this cooperation.  We would be happy to provide more information on this.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, (saying name).  In this room, we are aware of the great work the ITU is doing, at least myself I am aware
 Any other comments?  Yes, Parminder?
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  Parminder.  
 And I think we would acknowledge that with this second set, we are into the meatiest part of our work.  We are talking about public policy issues and gaps and the mechanisms that may be needed.  And I wonder whether we should approach it -- I mean, otherwise, it is just too open-ended and we approach it through making certain categories.  I mean, that would kind of, you know, make it a little more understandable, the kind of things we are talking about.
 For example, I heard in the morning the statement being made that everybody welcomes the decentralized architecture of Internet governance.  The technical community representative said that.  And even in the summary, we see that with regard to Internet governance, the majority of the respondents value the existing decentralized Internet governance ecosystem, which includes -- and it goes on.  But a substantial group of respondents is also open to consider the launch of new mechanisms.
 Now, these actually are two different things.  The ones who agree on the decentralized system which exists, I understand is already the technical and logical infrastructure system.  A lot of people agree actually, including me, on that.  
 The "but" part about people wanting a new mechanism largely refers to a very defense side of the enhanced cooperation landscape.  And if we keep on talking across these areas, we would not make progress because people would say we agree to the existing decentralized systems.  They are saying we need a new mechanism.  
 And if we are talking about, for example, the public policy making, I'm talking about real public policy making, not about technical policies, I do not know what kind of decentralized system exists.  And I'm ready for anybody to explain to me whether there is any decentralized system regarding public policy issues which are listed by many participants which could be net neutrality, which could be taxation issues, which could be education and health-related Internet things.  There is a huge list.  
 What kind of decentralized system exists regarding that?  Because it doesn't for me.
 Therefore, we are talking about two different sets.  As I said in the morning, if we talk about the technical policy making separately and other public policy making separately, we wouldn't be making this kind of cross-dialogue which has happened a lot in enhanced-cooperation discussions and may keep on happening.
 So I suggest we discuss the technical policy side and other public policies as two separate groups, and then we would know what are different people saying within that particular area rather than cross-talking.
 And just a last point about the public policy issues also, I think also the groupings can be made in this manner.  Instead of going by each public policy issue -- because we are not here to give responses to those public policy problems but just to understand the landscape so we can give suggestions about institutional requirements.
 So in that sense, I understand there are three groups, once which one are being dealt adequately right now somewhere by someone.  There are another set of public policies which are partly being dealt by some people but requires an Internet-related aspect to be dealt which is not being dealt.  And the third group which is completely -- has no existing kind of reference at all.  This also is mentioned (audio interference) which acknowledges that there are public policy issues which are not being addressed.
 So if we go by the fact there are three categories, then we could make progress with the corresponding requirements of institutional systems for each.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Parminder.  That's very interesting remarks.  Probably we shall think about your remarks.
 Now, the floor is Mr. Piazza.
 >>ANDRES PIAZZA:   Yes, thank you.  This is Andres Piazza, member of the technical community group.  Three remarks in the same direction or at least with some consensus with the previous speaker.
 First of all, there's apparently -- I guess, we can understand that the value of the current model of the Internet organizations or, let's say -- (audio feedback) -- the decentralized ICT, the value of that system is not in question.  I think this is one of the points.  
 The second point regarding the role of the IGF could be also considered one of the key roles in the future.
 And this third point that could be highlighted regarding the other issues, the other policy issues that are not currently being addressed in any different forum, what (indiscernible), and I guess we should agree also in this.  We can probably agree. There's no need to duplicate different forums.  But if there is the need to create a specific forum, this forum should have multistakeholder representation and not only as observers but also in the decision-making as equal footing.  This is the third point that should be highlighted.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Andres.
 Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you, Chair.  I'm going to build on, I think, a directional comment that Parminder just made by suggesting that, in fact, we are really into the meat of an area that needs substantial discussion.  And this was what I was -- when I referenced the point earlier that I'd like to think we could be flexible about what responses fit into the categories, I'd like to propose we consider separating question 4 from question 8 and 9 and consider adding the question that comes later, which is about issues that are important to developing countries and think about looking at the list of submissions in question 4 -- and I'm probably blanking on the number -- I think that's question 15 and looking at those in a sort of side-by-side approach to understand -- because, for instance, we have where one respondent listed ten issues, another may have listed 46.  But there are similarities and congruencies across the different lists that have been submitted.
 And that would be, to me -- because identifying -- what we're here to do is to try to understand the issues that need to be addressed under the framework of enhanced cooperation.  And to Parminder's point, we're not answering the issues but we are trying to sort of put them into categories.
 The second comment I would make -- And perhaps Parminder would be welcome -- would welcome a friendly amendment or we could talk about this more.  I think actually it's four groups, but it's somewhere between three and four.  There are the topics that are underway today but can't -- the focus on them can be enhanced or strengthened.  So that recognizes that public policy issues continue to evolve.  And even if an issue is being addressed, there may still need to be strengthening or enhancing of the -- particularly in participation from developing countries, et cetera.  
 Then there is the category of their partly being dealt with.  
 The category that I think Parminder suggested, they are new.  There is no existing reference place but we recognize them.  
 And then I think there's a fourth category that is more about trends which may lead us to understand that we can't predict or close out the fact that there will be more public policy issues that will emerge as technology and the number of users and the role of the Internet and its uses continue to evolve.
 And that last one would -- you know, I might think that the right place to discuss those is the IGF, but I think it's worth having a conversation to make sure that we as the working group are thoroughly understanding this.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn, very useful.  Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Chairman, this is on the two comments made with regards to dividing up this group in Question 4 and the other two questions.  I suppose that the issue of mechanisms is derived from the issues that we have or hope to face in the future.  Because that's -- the mechanism is sort of built to deal with those issues, some that we have on the table, some that we can foresee, and others we might not be able to foresee right now.  And I'm very thankful to the list that has been provided by various inputs that have come in, especially the one that you have listed in the summary which is the Brazilian government which is a reasonably large and quite extensive setup.  And I'm sure there's some missing in this, but it's a good reference to begin with.  And I suppose looking at Question 4 and the issue at hand which are under II listed in the mechanism section of the summary, it gives us a good idea to take this discussion forward as to which of these issues can be tackled in platforms which require multistakeholder approach and which you believe will require a different set of mechanisms.  And just to -- that's what it's going to boil down to finally.  What are we going to recommend in terms of how the mechanisms come into place that deal with the issues at hand.  And I think the (indiscernible) is that if you would look at these issues, I think that discussion, even though we're not here to respond as Parminder said to these issues, but I suppose that gives us a very good idea on whether these issues can be dealt with only in a multistakeholder process or if there's anything else that exists out there which in turn will influence the mechanisms and also where that should be located.  And including whether the current ones are good enough or they need to be extended or improved or more work needs to be done.  But a focus on Question 4 and the issue is -- actually could be the debate of the entire dialogue for the next two days because that's where the issues are.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for that.  Brazil, please.
 >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and listening to what has been said before, I fully agree with those that express the need that we should focus and identify different categories of issues we want to tackle.  In that sense, my view is that Questions 4 and 8 are closely linked because as we identify what our public policy Internet-related issues that we should work on from the point of view of enhanced cooperation, we should look at what are the current arrangements for that end and I think in the -- in the spirit of what has been said before in the (indiscernible) group that we should have a clear mapping of what we have.  So if we can link important issues to existing mechanism arrangements and differentiate between things that are -- have been said before that have already been dealt with by, you know, a decentralized system and that might not require any particular work in that regard.  In my opinion, even in that case, we should look -- from the point of enhanced cooperation -- how the work being done in this decentralized system could be better understood and better incorporated by other stakeholder.  I think that could be better indeed an angle through which we could see the work being done in this decentralized format but then we should focus on questions, on issues that although have been tackled also by different institutions might require, might be benefited from some added platform or some added layer of interaction.  And then there are other issues that do not have a clear focus, a clear home and maybe that should be the one that we should focus with more emphasis in our work.  I can relate to many notions that were expressed and not captured in the compilation document you have provided to us, Mr. Chair.  For example, when the Democratic Republic of Congo states that too many mechanisms kill the mechanism.  You should just have to define the mission of the existing mechanisms.  That then we might have a very clear understanding of what are those existing mechanisms and what could be done in order to provide for better interaction with other stakeholders.  And then it feels comments that emerging and often issues that have no other global home could justify a new mechanism.  So again, we must, I think, by looking at the issues, what are the existing -- the current mechanisms institutions are dealing with this and how we can improve on that and for those that are not there, what should we recommend to satisfy.  And on -- superceding all these and on top of all of these, I would just refer to a notion that is dear to my delegation, to others, that irrespective of issues being dealt with by different institutions or not, there is something that in our point of view is required, is a platform that would allow for a holistic and integrated view of all issues and from the point of view of enabling government to have a better understanding and better tools to address Internet-related public policy issues.  This is something that, in my opinion, needs -- would, let's say, provide not from the point of view of impacting or interfering with what is being done, for example by the decentralized system, but to allow governments to be best equipped.  This is something that emanates from the vision we have and the focus we tried to have in the enhanced cooperation exercise that we are focusing on some keywords in regard to the definition of enhanced cooperation.  We do know that this is not -- there's no consensus, but we are focusing on the needs to enable governments to -- and I think this is maybe at the core of the enhanced cooperation from the perspective of my delegation -- to enable governments to work around Internet-related public policy issues.  Of course we are talking of multistakeholder environment.  This is not something to be done exclusively by government, but from our perspective enhanced cooperation have a very clear focus-oriented approach.  And we would like to propose this.  But again, I think maybe the preliminary thing and I agree with (saying name) and others that said that maybe this is the crucial -- at the heart of the exercise, is to have different categories of issues that should be dealt with separately.  Otherwise, we see a lot of confusion and people refer to Internet Governance and enhanced cooperation, sometimes mixed issues that are by nature substantially different.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador.  I think it's very, very useful and it seems to me we are getting clear what we are here to do.  It's a very good guidance for me as well.  Sweden, please.
 >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman.  While we're looking at the answers, some of the answers, it's -- it is easy to see that trying to list all relevant public policy issues is a very difficult task.  We all have our favorites.  Certainly for us, some of the most pressing and important ones are the protection of human rights online, the protection of rule of law online, and the protection of free and open Internet that enables trade and commerce to flow freely.  However, we think by looking -- when looking at the answers, some of the answers, that they're -- I think it was the Indian response and maybe also the response of Finland that there are -- there has been work done in this area before, looking at the Internet -- the working group on Internet Governance, for example, and the report coming out from that working group.  You can see that there was an attempt to identify a group of categories rather than listing -- categories of topics rather than listing an extensive amount of topics itself.  And I think it's about the issues relating to the infrastructure and management of Internet resources.  It's the issues relating to the use of Internet.  It's the issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact that is much wider, and issues relating to development aspects of Internet Governance.  Maybe we should try to, to some extent, also base our work on what has already been done.  And then on the question of new mechanism, we totally agree also with what -- the response that what is highlighted earlier from Congo, for instance, that too many new mechanisms or too many mechanisms doesn't necessarily do the work.  We think that we should focus on how we can better utilize the existing foras and existing frameworks for Internet Governance, how that can be strengthened, how enhanced cooperation can be strengthened in the existing foras.  But let's continue our discussion on that.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden.  India.
 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  Just to quickly go through some of the proposals that are on -- that are under this group.  Firstly, with regard to the Question 4, I think it is perhaps good instruction to please recollect and give some recognition to the work that has been done by the working group which was hit up earlier on Working Group on Internet Governance.  That certain public policy issues have already been dealt with, have been at least identified and the five different groups.  In fact, given the Tunis Agenda we have made sort of a recognition that that working group has helped us to identify a number of public policy issues that are related to Internet Governance.  So I think we are not starting from a clean slate.  It's not a new kind of area that we are talking for the first time.  So to that extent, I think it would be useful to see if we can -- how best we can actually recognize.  They've all been categorized into five separate groups.  Again, taking from there, whether we need to work forward in terms of mapping as we've been discussing, whether any of the issues which -- which mechanisms are currently being handling and if, in our perspective, in our opinion is it sufficient.  If it is not sufficient, work further needs to be done.  I think such an approach would help us move forward quickly.  And if anyone -- any delegation has an additional item to be added, a policy issue to be added, I think we all could be open in terms of how best -- in which category it is to be reflected.  That is the first intervention as far as Question 4 is concerned.
 With regard to Question 8, in the morning we made a brief announcement that, you know, we have a data (indiscernible) response.  I think it's time to perhaps to read it out and later on we will circulate in the room in the afternoon as a document.  With regard to this question, the basic change would be towards the last paragraph.  I would just read the addition of it and then say why we are saying this.  And the addition goes that -- the last paragraph -- that after giving certain references to the various paragraphs in the Tunis Agenda we have a concluding paragraph states, thus it is a clear mandate for defining the mechanism for effective global Internet Governance.  We have said that in our earlier reply.  And thereafter we said what mechanism we have in mind, we will come back to you in the group.  I read quote, unquote, I read, the U.N. General Assembly could embark on a creation of a multi-lateral body for formulation of international Internet public policies.  The proposed wording should include all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in the Tunis Agenda and the WGIG report which is also part and parcel of this discussion.  To continue further, such a body should also develop globally-applicable principles and public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.  Unquote.  So this is the addition we have formally proposed, and the reason for this is very clearly as articulated in the Tunis Agenda itself in paragraph 29, 31 to 35 and paragraph 60.  I don't need to go into the detail.  I think we're quite familiar with these paragraphs.  It is our understanding and (indiscernible) that while is a recognition for the governments to act on an equal footing with each other, as has also been pointed out by our distinguished ambassador from Brazil and a few colleagues, that there is not that forum for the government to see this from a holistic manner, in a manner that where there is a responsibility for the government.  Again, we are saying it is not an exclusivity, certainly not.  It is -- it is what we call working together kind of an approach.
 With regard to Question Number -- relating to IGF and enhanced cooperation, I think it's important to recognize the contribution that the IGF has been making in enhancing the dialogue among the various stakeholders.  I don't think there are absolutely any doubts about also work -- also worked on improving their working methods through various processes, and I think its contribution will remain very important to the whole process.  The multistakeholder dialogue that we intend to embark upon.  However, there is a subtlety which I think has been brought up in the Tunis Agenda and which has been reflected through the U.N. General Assembly resolution which was adopted last year which was 67/195 and also for the ECOSOC resolution which was adopted in the General Assembly relating to a recommendation from the CSTD has been adopted by ECOSOC where they have made a distinction between the two processes, that these two are very distinct processes and they compliment each other.  That means there is kind of a constant and there's going to be a working togetherness as we go along.  And they're not going to be at anyone's cost.  This is two independent processes, and I think if you could make this recognition and work in that direction, perhaps our contribution in this working group would be very, very productive and also it will further strengthen the IGF processes that we have set in motion.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India.  Just a quick reflection.  Some of us have participated in the IGF in Bali which was an exceptional opportunity.
 >> (indiscernible)
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: We already have some oversight.
 ( Laughter )
 So coming back to the IGF, it was an excellent opportunity and even though I know, because I was behind some of the resolutions which you mentioned, the two processes are independent.  I would modify, with your permission, it's interdependent.  And we are complimenting each other, I believe.  The IGF and enhanced cooperation.  And there are very clear signs of that, just referring to the bilateral meetings we had during the IGF which were informal but still very helpful referring to bringing up policy issues during the main sessions which were extremely useful and I believe the process itself -- both processes itself are extremely helpful for each other.  
 Now, I can hear different voices, different opinions which are not very far from each other.  I have heard that some said that there need to be -- need to have a mapping of the existing processes.  Some said that we have enough fora to discuss issues, that we have to be more precise about responsibilities and the scope of these fora.  Probably this is a good way to start our discussions.  
 I fully agree that Question Number 4 is one of the crucial if not the crucial question when we discuss the heart of the matter, and all other issues are defending what we think, which are important for the group.  
 So having said that, I would like to note someone would like to take the floor?  On this you want to take the floor?  There's another flag up?  Yeah.
 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you.  Thank you very much, Chair.  I just want to follow on the intervention from the distinguished delegate from India and emphasize that what I -- what I understood from the findings of the consultation of the questionnaire that was distributed is that there is very clearly a verity of understandings of what enhanced cooperation means.  And from my perspective we should not be rushing to conclusions.  We should also take this opportunity that we have during these three days to identify what works on the basis of existing mechanisms.  Again, within the findings we saw, for instance, that since its creation the IGF has acted as a catalyst for enhanced cooperations.  I think if we are able to identify areas of consensus, then it would certainly be a very productive path leading to useful and agreed possible recommendations for the future.  I think again it's very important to work on the basis of the verity of understandings of what enhanced cooperation means and the acknowledgment that for a large majority of stakeholders it is not necessarily solely about intergovernmental cooperation.  It should include all stakeholder categories, including civil society, business, and the technical and academic community.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Constance.  I've been listening very carefully what has been said, and I had the impression that most of the contributions mentioned that enhanced cooperation should be made, taking into account the multistakeholder approach.  There was, however, I think some differences about the implementation, whether it should be a multistakeholder approach or should it be a kind of multi-lateral, that's what I heard, with advisers from other stakeholder groups.  So it's up to us to give recommendations in this area.  
 It is my impression that the majority expressed views, those who took the floor, for the multistakeholder approach, and this is one of the critical issues of our discussions, whether we recommend either way.  So any reflection on that?  Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  My reflection is first of all to -- I intended to follow on the comment that's been raised a couple of times that I want to be sure that we address and that is recalling for all of us that we have previously, when this group was set up, discussed the need for a form of a mapping exercise.  We've also seen a call for that from some of the comments.  And I want to go back to, I think we need to look at the submissions, particularly in Question 4, and have some kind of general agreement on what's in the list of topics before we start finding homes for them, with all recognition of the comments that have been offered about different models that might offer new mechanisms.  We also -- I believe I've heard colleagues call for looking at how we strengthen and enhance existing mechanisms.  And so I'd like to suggest we focus a bit more on mapping first and then coming back to the question of what are the range of approaches that could be looked at for strengthening and improving existing mechanisms or for looking at what new mechanisms, if any, are then to be discussed within this group.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn.  I have a question to you.  When you are mentioning mapping exercise do you have something in mind which we should be doing right here, right now, or should it be left to the Secretariat, or what is your complete suggestion?
 >>MARILYN CADE: Well, particularly on Question 4, and then the other question I referenced, which I think is Question 15 about public policy issues which are of most interest to developing countries, I think, in fact, that's actually a quick process that can be done by looking at the submission of topics that have been contributed by the various submitters.  There -- there's congruency for some of them.  Some of them are more granular than others but do have a certain amount of, I think, the ability -- for instance, I would say that security and trust in the online world could include topics like child online protection or capacity building in dealing -- you know, I think it would be possible to begin to aggregate topics into categories.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: An additional question, how do you see it to be done?  Shall we create some kind of small working group within the working group itself and which would come back to us, though I can't see it being done during the plenary.  Would it be useful to have an offline group and then come back to the plenary with the results?
 >>MARILYN CADE: Well, it might be interesting to understand if there's support in the room and colleagues who would like to work in that direction.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  I'll let you think about the proposal, Marilyn.  In the meantime, Jimson, you wanted to take the floor.
 >> JIMSON OLUFUYE:  Thank you, distinguished chair, your excellencies, colleagues, ladies and gentleman.  My name is Jimson Olufuye.  The chair of Africa ICT Alliance.  It's a private sector led ICT group for Africa.  So I'm really very pleased to be one of the five business entities in this working group.  
 Since this is the first time I'm speaking today, I want to really appreciate the Chair, the Secretariat, for the great job they've done.  And I have no doubt we're going to continue in the exact same momentum.  
 Well, the issues that pertain to Internet policy, with regard to developing country is also very closely related to what is of concern to developed countries.  So I think just to align my thought with the view as expressed by Marilyn that it would be a good idea to outline all the subject matters or the areas of concerns and then map it really and then see where they are already functioning, where they are already actively being treated.  I'm very much familiar with the core ideas which EU, African Union, and (indiscernible), that is my area.  These are issues they are already discussing vigorously at that level.  So if we're able to outline all those points, you can see where we have gaps.  So if we have gaps, then surely let us take them on.  We also know there will be many issues, many issues.  It would be a good idea to see where (indiscernible) will fit in because the enhanced cooperation topic on the Internet is very dynamic and quite fluid.  But as my colleague has already underscored, whatever will be done going forward has to be truly multistakeholder model.  It's a great privilege that the private sector which I represent is also -- is also being considered seriously, and I think this as our issue shall continue in the interest of our citizens -- global citizens and citizens in the developing nation in particular.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  Thank you, Jimson.  I can identify Parminder and then Brazil.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  I first raised the flag to follow up on the Chair's observation about there being a kind of talk about whether we should follow a multistakeholder approach or a multilateral approach with stakeholder participation and consultations.  This actually goes to the topic, cluster 3, which is the role of stakeholders.  But I think the role of stakeholders is very much tied with both kind of issues and the mechanisms.  And in that sense, it fits here.  And that's pretty fine.
 However, I still think in case we need to go by categories -- and if that works, the mapping is fine with me because it is the nature of issues, not the specific issue, let's not get bogged down whether access is more important or network neutrality or trade issues or global taxation, that list is endless.  And if we start doing that, I mean, that wouldn't be the most productive use of our time.
 We are talking about kinds of issues which require different kind of institutional responses which includes very prominently different roles of stakeholders.  And that is a thing we're trying to kind of sort out today.
 And in that sense, again, when I hear multistakholder approach, I'm very comfortable when technical policy is being made.  Corporate sectors who have a lot of expertise would come in perhaps on an equal basis and give their expertise because they are make standards.  This is completely different from substantive public policy issues like when I read the Brazilian list and the issues are there and many other issues on the list:  Cultural diversity, harmonization of national policies, trade and e-commerce, consumer rights, data protection and privacy rights.  They are typical public policy issues.  
 And if we are talking about actual public policy issues, I think we are touching the Holy Grail of democracy whether when corporate can be equal in decision-making along with a government.  I don't know if that's the precise question you're talking about or even if a civil society actor can actually have a veto or actual role in decision-making.  These are different sets of issues.  The technical policy making is one set, oversight is a small other set, and other public policy issues which are substantive public policies and which Tunis Agenda says is the responsibility of governments is a different set of issues.  
 And then I get confused when people say, Okay, we are agreeing about the multistakeholder approach.  Then I'm fine when it is the technical side.  
 Are we talking about the public policy issues side?  Are we talking about global taxation on Internet issues?  And what does that mean when we say every stakeholder has an equal right to be a part of the decision-making process?  
 I think unless we separate things in categories, depending on different kind of mechanisms and different stakeholder roles, we would still be talking across areas and which would not be very conducive to our progress.  And in that sense, if mapping is the way to go, mapping is fine.  But mapping by the needs of institutional areas rather than whether developing countries need it or whether it is access or whether it is net neutrality.  But mapping it according to the kind of issues which need different institutional responses and also perhaps different roles of stakeholders, which is an open question.  But the categories, I understand, would be this.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Parminder.  
 Brazil, please.
 >>BRAZIL:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  In my opinion, the way we deal with this set of questions will give the sense of the success or not of this group.  I see a lot of confusion even among people who are actors, who operate in the Internet, a lot of confusion on those issues.  And I -- in my opinion, it's not have one single formulation that encompasses all situations.  There's no one solution, one side, that fits all for all the issues on the table.  And this has been spelled out by Marilyn Cade, Parminder and others.
 So unless we have very clear differentiation between different contexts, any statement, for example, that some parties prefer the multistakeholder approach and opposition -- this would be artificial because we would be talking about different things.
 Even from the part of parties that favor a more multilateral approach, you get to some issues, for example, to my understanding, they do not challenge, for example,the kind of work that is being done with regard to engineering of the Internet.  So there is no point, for example, for the ISTARs to be concerned about this when -- it's not addressing what they're doing.  
 So I think we must differentiate.  I think the idea of categories of issues is important.  And the mapping exercise is important.  I think it is, indeed, maybe a prerequisite for us to work, to have a clear understanding of categories and the mapping associated to it.
 You have asked whether we should do it now or -- it is a rather complicated question because on one hand, I think it is, indeed, the prerequisite for an efficient work.  But if we start doing it now, it will not be efficient for us to do it.  So I'll leave it in your hands, Mr. Chair and colleagues, about how we can maybe move forward in that but without affecting negatively our work and the time we have aside for us.
 Again, I think one very concrete contribution coming from this group would be to give clarity on this which is -- as we read pieces of paper statements, it is confusing.  And sometimes we clearly see that people are talking about different things.
 We see at the OECD, those have building blocks that are not necessarily in opposition if we deal differently with different kinds of situations.  This is not contradictory if we are supporting fully multistakeholder approach, even without any kind of governmental participation.  On the other hand, we discuss issues we want some more -- it is required some more, let's say, governmental policy-making authorities.  So the mapping exercise is completely relevant.
 What I would like to ask -- this is the kind of approach to take -- to have an open mind in regard to what we have on the table.  We would not -- we do not want to be impeded to proceed in some direction by our own perspective.  But we want to take fully into account other stakeholders' perspectives because, for example, the point of view from government for some particular set of issues is very important.  And maybe when we focus on this, then we have a discourse that entails some concern.  But we also want to acknowledge that for other parties, other aspects are important.
 So I think as we look to the whole picture, it is important to make clear that we are -- we have to differentiate and we have to work around this idea of categories of mapping.  And, again, I do not have an understanding how it would be more efficient for us to work around this.  But I think it's a prerequisite for us for our work.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Ambassador.  So I can hear a relatively clear support for the mapping as a prerequisite for work.  And at the same time, I'm happy that you share my concerns about the proceeding of our work.  So that's why I suggested that eventually we can have a task for -- whatever you may call it, a subgroup, which could come up with the beginning of this exercise to give us some food for thought.
 And I wonder if apart from the persons who suggested to have the -- this exercise, who would be interested to work during lunchtime, during coffee breaks, during the evenings but outside the meeting and come back, say, in some point of time, to provide us with further inputs?  First Marilyn and then (saying name).
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Chair, let me ask a question.  It seems to me that a first starting point would be a simple Excel spreadsheet which has on the left-hand side the name of the submitter and across the top -- sorry, I'm trying to organize this in my mind as I'm looking at it.  So the name of the submitter and then the issues that they submitted under question 4, I would say question 15 as well, but question 4.  That sounds to me like it is a cut and paste -- the first step is a cut and paste so that then we can start looking at it.
 Is that -- and trying to boil the longer list into more generalized categories.  And then taking into account -- I think the next step, taking into account the idea then of how you look at the discussion in the room coming from:  So do we think this particular topic is falling into one of the four or three groupings that Parminder and I had been discussing?
 But the first step sounds to me like, I would hope, a secretariat function of cut and paste to try and to get the submissions into a document.  Is your suggestion that we need to find participants to do that first?
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Marilyn, I have been told by the secretariat that the path of the exercise has already been done.  It's on the Web site, if I'm not mistaken.  But can I ask you to make some clarification to that?
 >> On the Web site, we have two kinds of PDF documents.  One set of PDF documents are the individual submissions.  Another set of PDF documents are compilation by question.  So you can download all the responses to question 4, for instance, 15 or 2 or 5, whatever.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Is it an answer to your question or to the proposal or you want to go beyond?
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Chair, I'm very familiar with it.  I'm carrying it around with me.  I sleep with it under my pillow.
 >> CHAIR MAJOR:  No doubt about it.
 [ Laughter ]
 >> MARILYN CADE:  I was thinking about transcribing it on to the pillow case.  But it's going to be difficult to work with it in this particular form unless people have a paper copy in front of them.  If you haven't seen it, you know basically we would be flipping back page by page.
 So that was my question about -- but is the secretariat's suggestion that we volunteer task force members could spend our lunchtime filling in Excel spreadsheet?  Which is possible, of course.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Just a slight correction, it is not the secretariat, it is mine.
 [ Laughter ]
 So let me be clear about it.  I made the suggestion, and I'm happy that you accepted it.  And I would like to see more and more volunteers to sacrifice their lunchtime, which is very much approaching.
 Before we break, I think India has asked for the floor.  And then I propose to break for lunch and ask you as well to find a way to get together and to start this exercise which has been proposed.
 Basically, I think that we are talking about the mapping exercise, talking about some kind of spreadsheet approach, if I'm not mistaken, which will take the issues and the proposals.
 Marilyn, can you be clearer on that?  What is your proposal exactly?
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Well, I don't think it's just my issue.  I think if there's interest in doing a mapping exercise, we should hear from others who are interested in it.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Okay.  Brazil?
 >>BRAZIL:   I'm sorry, but it's more a point of clarification because when we are proposing these mapping exercises, we are looking to something that is not exactly to map what the different responses were and to identify the issues but to link this, the issues to the current arrangement and mechanism.  
 So this is something that in our view should maybe be done -- I could not volunteer.  I do not have expertise to link some issue to some current arrangement.  But I think this is something that would assist us in moving forward.  
 This was the understanding I had of the mapping, is that it is required for us to move forward.  And I think this is something that will not emerge only from compilation which has already been done by the secretariat, by the way.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I understand your concerns, and I share them.  I'm sure that not all of us have the expertise here to be part of this group.  I think it can be only regarded as a start for this exercise.  And probably it will be helpful maybe for all meetings right now.  I think it will be useful for the future meetings, if I'm not mistaken.
 India, you wanted to take the floor?
 >>INDIA:   Thank you, Chair.  I'm glad this clarification has already been given.  I think mapping exercises not with the proposers of those proposals but rather with the issues, public policy issues versus the mechanisms, existing.  So that would lead us to the next questions.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Okay.  So it seems to me that we are on -- yes, Virat, I suggest you are the last and we break for lunch.
 >> VIRAT BHATIA:  We have two sort of options here.  One is the WGIG document that was mentioned, which has under Section III "identifying public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance and addressing the advocacy of existing governance arrangements mentioning A, B, C, D," four issues.  And then we have the Brazilian government's list which is about five issues mentioned, but they are not necessarily corresponding to each other.  
 So I suppose if the mapping exercise has to happen, then we'll have to mention those under the WGIG documents classified, those 48 or 45 issues and then start linking them to mechanisms as well as the roles of the various stakeholders.  I think that would be two exercises.  
 And if it's -- I think that will lead us to deciding what the mechanisms should be.  And whether an existing mechanism has a home or we need to find a new home.
 I think these two documents will have to be merged for us to get -- because the submissions to question 4 has five different inputs ranging from 13 to 49, issues identified by various stakeholders.  The set we are going with in terms of WGIG is four.  So we can possibly pick the biggest set -- let's say the Brazilian set, for example -- and try to match it there and work from there.  We are happy to provide and Excel sheet without promising no mistakes.
 [ Laughter ]
 And then the team can change it around in case some have to shift and link it to a mechanism, if that is helpful.  I'm just offering that help.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Well, thank you for the support of this proposal.  I think the secretariat can give you further support in that.  So probably if you request them to be part of the exercise, they will be happy to help you.
 As for the time frame for the exercise, I'm not really sure that we can come back after lunch, but I hope we can, and we can continue all discussions still on group 2, taking into account your input or your results.  And I think that would be quite helpful.
 Having said that, I think we can break now.  I want to see you back by 3:00.  And I encourage you to spend your lunchtime the most efficient way you think.
 [ Lunch break ]
 [ Gavel ]
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Can I ask you to take your seats, please.
 Thank you.  Welcome back.  I hope you had a very good lunch, good discussions.  I want to start with an announcement.  India had made an update to the contributions.  And you have the update in paper form on the table, I think, at the entrance of the room.  So feel free to pick up your copy.
 It is my understanding that the voluntary task group undertaking a kind of mapping exercise has made significant progress.  We are talking about the grouping of -- we have the Questions Number 4, 8 and 9.  It is my understanding that the mapping exercise has been started and taken into account the contributions to reply to Question Number 4.
 So we are going to discuss this afternoon the questions in Group 4.  I would like to ask any representative of this voluntary task group if they feel like reporting on the results.  We are very keen to know where we are.
 Yes, Marilyn, please.
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you, Chair.  I'll open my comments by saying that the voluntary task group is going to be seeking further collaboration and participation, so if you didn't -- if you didn't spend your lunch hour with us, don't think you're off the hook.
 But let me give you a quick update.  What we did -- and two members of the voluntary group are still trying to finalize a working document.  Virat Bhatia has also engaged some of his team to also help.  What we're doing is taking -- sort of envision Column 1 as being a consolidated list of all of the bulleted items that were submitted on Question 4 from any submitter, starting with the Brazilian list and then consolidating all of the bullets.
 So if a submitter wrote a paragraph we've not been able to figure out, those will not have been reworded.  But the first column will be all of the bullets.  There will be a lot of duplication or phrases which may mean roughly the same thing but they're worded differently.
 The second column we're proposing -- this will, of course, be up to the participants to decide, but we're proposing then to try to come to a grouping that is more consolidated.  So envision Column 1 as possibly having well over a hundred bullets in it with duplication in it.  Maybe 80 but it will be a long list of bullets.
 And then the second column would be consolidated headings where we would try to come up with categories that everybody felt comfortable with that that long list of bullets could be consolidated into.
 The third column we are proposing drawing from the submissions would be the list of activities.  We are using a very general heading, the list of activities that are underway.  So if someone submitted an example that the ITU is doing work on child online protection or the ITU submitted that, that would be go in there.  MOG (phonetic) was mentioned by another group, so that would go in that.
 And then we'll have two blank columns.  
 The fourth column would probably, in order to make this a useful tool, need to be sort of a general assessment of satisfaction with progress on enhanced cooperation.  And I'm really using that as a very general term, taking Parminder's suggestion of three categories, and mine of four.  And then there is a column that just says "comments."  
 So by tomorrow morning, we would expect to have -- and actually have it to send to everyone by later today this Excel spreadsheet.  And then we would want to try to figure out what the consolidated headings are for Column 2.  So this would be a mapping exercise for one question but a question that, I think, everyone has agreed is a very significant question and where there was a significant amount of input.
 Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Marilyn.  And thank you for all who have participated in this work and who are going to participate.  And I really encourage all of you to participate and to contribute.
 I think the result of this exercise may be a very valuable document.  I think as well that due to the complexity of the issue, probably many of us would think that we have to take the document back home and consult with relevant partners.  So having said that, I'm looking forward to have this document eventually by tomorrow.  And I'm sure the secretariat will give all the help which is needed to finalize in a way that we can use it for our future discussions.
 So we are back to Group Number 2, Questions 4, 8 and 9.  And before lunch break, we discussed many issues.  I'm turning to you if you have any other comments or observation on these questions.
 My intention, that eventually we will go through in a relatively quick way all the groups and all the questions and we shall revisit them naturally in more depth.  And probably we will take two groups of questions in the coming days with a view of eventually arriving to some kind of draft recommendation.
 So any comment on Question Numbers 4, 8 and 9?
 Well, I can see no one asking for the floor.
 Yes, Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Sorry, Chair.  I actually think for myself I got very diverted on to Question 4, and I don't feel like we have talked through 8 and 9.  And I would ask other colleagues.  But I think there's a merit to talking about 8 and 9 as a pair right now.  Or if people don't feel prepared to talk about it, then I would like to park it and come back to it because they are two questions that I otherwise sort of feel like we're stranding.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I fully agree with you.  That's why I asked the group to comment on that.  I can see the United States asking for the floor.  Please.
 >>UNITED STATES:   Thank you, Chairman.  Perhaps not to comment on that particular point but to take your earlier point, I guess, when you were just asking generally for comments related to various questions.  So in the arena of Question 4, I would just make a note that for my administration, from the United States, we see no hard distinction between public policy issues and technical issues in terms of broadly governance.  Both, whether we are in a technical arena or in a public policy arena, for us we think that it's important to take in the views of all stakeholders, not just simply government, not just simply the private sector.  And that's the way we can best progress.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, U.S., for this comment.
 Parminder.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   If as Marilyn says that 8 and 9 has to be treated together and 8 is about mechanisms and 9 about the role of IGF and also taking from the United States' intervention that if -- I mean, I have been trying to insist since morning that categories of technical and public policy be separated because the nature of stakeholder roles are different.
 And, now, if -- now, we have to then connect to the point where they are different or non-different.  I think that point, even between the mechanisms and the IGF, is the decision-making procedures which the Chair has very appropriately put as a subheading in the summary itself.
 I think the core issue is this.  People do agree that, yes, whether it is technical or public policy, everybody's views have to be taken.  They could be heavily layered and intensive processes of view taking and reporting back why the views were considered and not, et cetera.  And all of this are fine.  
 And I think the real point is the decision-making procedure regarding different kinds of issues.  And that's where the difference lies.  In technical policies, the decision-making could still be shared in some manners.  But there is some kind of public policy issues, e-commerce and consumer rights and taxation, a whole host of them here.  In international jurisdictions, we are also very clear that the decision-making is done in a particular manner.
 So I think if we discuss the decision-making procedures part of your summary, then we would be going to the meat of this particular question.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Parminder.
 India, please.
 >>INDIA:   Thank you, Chair.  I just want to have a quick clarification from Marilyn.  I think she made a point about Question 4 being closely looked at with Question 10.  Is that assumption correct?
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Sorry.  I think it's Question 15.  It is the one that identifies public policy issues of most importance to the developing countries.  15, isn't it?
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Any other comment?  Yes, Virat.
 >> VIRAT BHATIA:  I think the point that's been brought up by Parminder is an important one.  And I think there are two views emerging which we need to sort of take cognizance of and then work away to try to close the gap as much as possible, which is are there areas where the decision-making has to be such that the other stakeholders have a lesser or a different role?
 And I think we have not reached that conclusion based on the submissions yet.  So I think that should be open to an evolving dialogue during this discussion.
 And I don't want to go into the specifics that have been mentioned, but I think business believes that -- and I speak for my colleagues.  I think we -- we believe that stakeholders need to be on that table on an equal footing to make those decisions as much as they have to be on an equal footing in the policy dialogue that occurs in places such as the IGF.
 Part of this is because if not all, vast majority of the infrastructure that currently provides access to nearly 7 billion mobile subscriptions in the world, citizens who are online, which is 40% of the world and 40% of the households across the world, that infrastructure is provided by the private sector.  
 So even if access was an issue -- and we can go on to any number of issues there -- I think any policy that will impact the investment possibilities across the world and given the fact that there is free flow of investment now across the world, just citing one of the many, would require stakeholders to be in this decision-making process at an equal footing and more importantly have a mechanism which allows for everybody to be on an equal footing, not just to be consulted but, in fact, the views should be considered and discussed.  And if there is a result that we reach after the discussion, it could well be that one of the stakeholders was wrong and the other stakeholder was right.  That decision can only be made if the mechanism and the platform provides for all the stakeholders to be on an equal footing.
 If the status of the stakeholders is decided before the discussion occurs, then the decision-making will shift to a certain different stakeholder.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you for these remarks.  Definitely no one really thinks right now that we are at the state of conclusions.  We are just starting our discussions.  And we are here to express the different approaches we have and we try to find some common understanding, which approach is advantageous to one issue and which approach is advantageous to another one.  So probably at the end of the day, we may have a better understanding.  I don't think we are going to arrive to some conclusion -- well, at least not today.  I hope we are going to arrive to some conclusion on Friday evening.  If not, I think we will have other meetings.
 We know the issues are complex.  We know that.  And the issues are new.  Even though the decision which was taken during the WSIS dates about almost nine years now.  But still the evolution of the Internet itself and all the issues which we are facing every day are new.  So I think we are in a learning curve, and we have to take this also into account.
 So any other comments on Question 4, 8 and 9?  There was a request or a call from Marilyn that eventually we'd like to discuss 8 and 9 which haven't been touched upon.
 Yes, India.
 >>INDIA:   Thank you, Chair.  I'd just like to reflect on some of the comments which have been made just now by colleagues in the room.  I think -- I think to be drawn into the initial comments you made at the beginning of this meeting, I think they're very critical and important.  The mandate of the group here is very well-specified through the General Assembly resolution.  I think we need to be extremely mindful, which you have reminded us quite very early in the discussion, that the challenge that we face is -- there are obviously evolving subjects, evolving issues.
 And having said that, I think it would be important to bear in mind that we are not here to rewrite the Tunis Agenda.  We are not here to redefine the roles with respect to stakeholders.
 I think if you go down that path, we may have difficulties in arriving at conclusions or the way decisions are to be made.  I think these are larger issues that we should leave for some other mandated body to look at it.
 At this point in time, the route we embarked upon which is to define those issues which we decide as public policy issues and technical issues and then going down the path of looking at what mechanisms that are existing and if we need to further strengthen them.  I think perhaps that could be the right way to do, in our opinion.  So I think it's important that we continuously be reminding ourselves of the importance of this particular dimension of our work.
 Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you for this remark.  And you maybe show that I will do my best to stick to the mandate we have.  However, we should also take into consideration that we are part of a process and this process is the WSIS +10 process.  We should provide some input to the final evaluation of the WSIS +10.  And we cannot exclude some elements which may be beneficial for the revision of this process, for the review of the process.
 Before I give the floor to Avri, Carlos asked for the floor.  Carlos.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   Yes.  I would just like to compliment what you just said, Peter.  I think that the document from LACNIC, the response from the questionnaire, it says an interesting thing that the Tunis Agenda, the results of Tunis, we don't have to take as a Bible in every paragraph, sentence, or word because there is a dynamic.  There is a process in which the Internet is evolving.  The technologies are evolving.  The relationships between states and other stakeholders are evolving as well.
 And this is the reason why we are here, exactly too precise or to attempt to focus more on these issues of cooperation amongst stakeholders.  So let's not be fixed on the idea of "in their respective roles," and let's be much more open about it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Carlos.
 Avri, remote participant, and then I see Phil and I see Sweden as well.
 >>AVRI DORIA:   Good day to you all.  Sorry I couldn't be here.  Saying good day from lovely Vancouver where the IETF meeting is being held this week.
 I wanted to come in behind what Carlos has said and comment on the role of stakeholders and the notion that that is something that is somewhat sacrosanct and cannot be modified.  
 I rather say that it is something that must be modified.  It was a government proscription for the roles of all stakeholders, the roles and responsibilities.  It does not reflect accurately all the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in the Internet governance environment.  
 And unless we can adjust that to reflect reality, to reflect real capabilities, we are condemning ourselves to sort of wander around in circles where some people assert that roles and responsibilities that others have and must take cannot be the case.  So I really do beg us to take the redefinition of those in a multistakeholder model as opposed to trying to constrain the discussions in such a way that only one stakeholder defines the roles and responsibilities of another.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Avri.  Very interesting remarks.  And we are aware of the enormous task ahead of us.  And we should also understand the delicacy of the issues.  So probably we have to be very cautious in using words such as "must."  We shall, of course, consider things.  But I would caution you to follow a kind of process which is very cautious.
 Phil and then Sweden.
 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   Thank you, Chair.  And good afternoon.  I listen with interest to this discussion and my mind goes back to the very interesting and varied interpretations that have been put into the responses that we have received as part of the process.  And I think the points that have been made by yourself and others are ones that we should take into account.
 WSIS was nine years ago, and the world has moved on since then.  To some it has perhaps not moved as much and as fast or, indeed, covered a number of the points that would have been liked.  But the journey, as many refer to enhanced cooperation within the responses, has started.  And I think it's important certainly bearing in mind the point made by Virat and by others that it is -- it is a start.  And stakeholders, as part of the debate, now need to be included as a general inclusion in discussions and decisions going forward.  I don't think we should try and lose sight of that.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Phil.
 Sweden.
 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chairman.  First of all, I agree what was said by India.  We are not here to rewrite the Tunis Agenda.  That's not within our mandate obviously.
 However, what I think we all have to do, given that the Tunis Agenda is, say, a high-level document -- high-level principles are enclosed in the Tunis Agenda -- is that we have to interpret the Tunis Agenda.  And that's, I think, something that we all do here.  So there is a clear distinction there, I think.
 Just also to comment on the issue that was discussed before about separating technical issues from public policy issues, I think we are also of the view that we do not see a clear benefit of making such a distinction given that we think that it's very important to deal with public policy issues also in a multistakeholder environment.  So we are not sure that that would add any benefit to the work here to do such a clear distinction, separation.
 If I also may very briefly comment on Question 8 and 9, since you asked for that, although we can come back with more details later.  But for us, enhanced cooperation is a process.  And I think that's -- that's very important to keep in mind.  And, therefore, it's not something that is implemented through one mechanism or in one specific fora but a process that is taking place in many different foras.
 And we definitely see IGF as one of those foras where enhanced cooperation is taking place, not the only one, though, but one of them.  So that's how we -- that's our take on Question 8 and 9, I think.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  Again, the remote participant, Joy Liddicoat.  Joy, you have the floor.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Thank you, Peter.
 I wanted to just make a couple of comments with respect to comments made so far.  This is in relation to Question 8 and coming from mechanisms.
 (Background noise).
 (indiscernible).  I think that's critical to underscore.  I think there has been a (indiscernible) of mechanisms on which enhanced cooperation has been quite constant.  Tunis Agenda was agreed and that includes both new and existing mechanisms.  For example, there are some mechanisms considering (indiscernible) issues including the United Nations (indiscernible) which have not previously been considered before in some respects which cover an actual cooperation's mechanism of stakeholders.  And that I think with regard to whatever form the mechanism takes, it's going to be more successful in enhanced cooperation that people participating can do so with confidence.  
 And I think that, therefore, (indiscernible) to which people have a stake with an existing governmental system, there are many opportunities for governments who participate, some obviously more than others.  And the challenge, I think, is to give developing countries more voice but also to just civil society and other stakeholders with some existing mechanisms.
 (indiscernible).  I would agree that this decision of public policy and technical issues (indiscernible) because if we are going to define substance from the former works we discussed, then I think we are at risk for (indiscernible) public policy.  
 And I would remind (indiscernible) members to think about (indiscernible) enhanced cooperation.  Cooperation is a positive tool.  It's a tool that is designed to catch (background noise) (indiscernible) that some participants are working on over the months.  But it would be an useful one for us to go back to and consider this afternoon.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Joy.  You sounded a bit distant from us.  She's talking from New Zealand.
 We are -- I think all of us are aware of the importance of the process we are in.  And enhanced cooperation means something very positive to all of us, I believe, well to me at least.  And I would like to encourage you to take this positive approach as well.
 So having said that, anyone on Question 4, 8, 9?  Especially 8 and 9.
 Yes, an observer.
 >>MATTHEW SHEARS:   Thank you, Chair.  Matthew Shears with CDT.  I think just a couple comments on what's been said so far.  There is an incredibly diverse -- great diversity of views on enhanced cooperation, and that is reflected very well in the summary.  But I would like to take a couple of particular points, especially when it comes to mechanisms.  People have mentioned how the world has changed, how the Internet has changed since the WSIS.  And I'd like to say that when we contemplate moving forward in this particular working group and we talk about multilateral models that have other stakeholders in some consultative role, this doesn't seem to me to be a step forward in any interpretation of the word "cooperation."  
 I think to come back to the things that were said earlier on today, it is important that we be open to the views of all of the parties.  It is important that we reflect on how the Internet space has evolved and how there has been cooperation and enhanced cooperation and that we take that view forward.
 And I would like to say that for all those who have suggested that we need to look at the issues, this is exactly the way to go forward.  Let's look at those issues.  Let's understand how they are being addressed.  Let's then understand in what ways they are being addressed and how those ways can be improved upon, and let's take that as the basis of our discussions.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  Well, it seems to me that for the time being, there are no more contributions concerning the Group 2; that is 4, 8 and 9.  We have the promise of the voluntary task group to come up with a document tomorrow morning so probably we shall discuss this issue tomorrow as well.
 Now, I suggest that eventually we move to the next group.  This is Group 3.  I will let you look into the questions pertaining to Group 3.  Probably five minutes would be enough to refresh our memories and then we shall start the discussions after the coffee break which I think will be around 20 past 4:00.  So please have a look at the questions under Group 3.
 [ Reviewing document. ]
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, it seems to me that five minutes goes really fast and you seem to be very much absorbed in your exercise, which I'm very happy about, but I believe we have to get to the point now.  So it's Group 3, and I would like to hear some comments from you.  
 So far, if I'm not mistaken, we are talking about Questions 5, 6, 7, 17 -- 14, and 17, which is quite substantial.  And they're all of the stakeholders we have already touched upon, but our (indiscernible) this is the nature of the thing, but we come back to the same issues from a different angle.  But right now we have to concentrate on this particular issue, which is the role of the stakeholders.  So who would like to contribute, and I would like to have -- of course, with all my respect to you, Brazil, I'm all ears for the comments.  I will give you the floor shortly, but let me ask those ones who seem to have some kind of jet lag or some kind of fatigue because of the -- we're at the end of the year and we have many meetings, I understand.  But I would like to encourage you, those of you who haven't done it yet, to contribute to the meeting, to collect more views and to make this meeting really fruitful.  Brazil, please.
 >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Well, I also joined a group of people that are jet-lagged.  But anyway, maybe I can just make a few comments.  First of all, in the light of the discussions we had before, if we agreed that we want to examine the issue of enhanced cooperation through the angle of differentiation among issues, then Question Number 5 should also take this into account when we ask, "What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation," so various aspects relates to different kinds of circumstance that should be dealt with differently.  So, in a way it is linked to the discussion we had before, and in a way to have meaningful discussion with this we would need the work that is being -- that they can -- I understand by Marilyn Cade and others, that can provide us with some more tools for that regard.  However, I would also -- from the point of view of governments, I would recall that in another section in the context of the Council Working Group, the U.K. has come up with a proposal that is very interesting from the point of the view of the role of governments in Internet Governance as a whole that provides very useful elements for examining this issue from the perspective of governments.  And the way it indicates areas in which governments can -- and certainly from the perspective of public policy -- can provide very specific contribution for the environment, the legal environment, legal framework, regulatory framework, and also as a catalyst for the multistakeholder ambiance as a whole.  So I think even if it is not in the context of how it will work, it will be useful to relate to this document.  
 Question Number 6, of course, is -- in our view is also very clearly -- 6 and 7 to the discussion also we had before in the sense that the -- also if we identify -- oh, I'm sorry.  Yes, because then we are maybe focusing on mechanisms, and I think this is something that might be useful to use in conjunction with Question Number 8.  All of these questions relate to each other.  It's not easy to -- it's not so clear how to tackle them separately.
 In regard to Question Number 7, I would also again refer you to this U.K. paper, refer that enhanced cooperation, from the point of view of governments, from the point of view of the enabling environment, it certainly will also be a tool for participation of multistakeholders and in itself with assist them also to carry out their roles and responsibilities.
 One comment in regard to Question Number 14 is that I think this is, of course, a very useful issue to be examined and I understand for a few participants a very important issue and for my own delegation a very important issue, the local language contents.  However, in this case, I -- my feelings are that maybe it should not be the main focus of our work.  I think we should -- I think this is one of the issues that should be dealt with in the context of enhanced cooperation.  That's -- the focus of our work should be the structure and the kind of framework we want, more than the issues themselves.  So my feeling is that although very important aspects, that should not maybe be the focus of our work here.
 And finally with regards to 17, yeah, again I would just refer to the reply we gave on the policy development institutional multistakeholder framework, and I want to make reference to the model we had in Brazil in the steering committee which is one of the possibilities in which that would be translated to a concrete achievement.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil.  Sweden, please.
 >>SWEDEN: Thank you.  Just a couple of comments.  I think one thing that is important to keep in mind when we are discussing about the roles of different stakeholders is that we are dealing with a very rapidly changing environment.  So rules of stakeholders might also change over time.  Also, we think that it's quite important to not have too much of a top-down approach on this.  Roles of stakeholders will be defined by stakeholders to a large extent.  And not by -- by people outside of, let's say, the Internet Governance Eco-System.  
 Just to also comment briefly on how we see the role of the government, we definitely think that upholding the rule of law online in the same manner as we do offline is one of the main roles of the government as well as them upholding human rights online in the same manner that we uphold human rights offline, as well as facilitating multistakeholder dialogue on these issues.  I think a lot of that has also been captured in the U.K. proposal that was mentioned by Brazil, and we very much appreciate that contribution and looking forward to sort of a dialogue on that.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden.  So anyone -- yes, Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  I would just like to build on a reference that Brazil made about the submission of the U.K. into the international public policy working group because I think it is an excellent resource.  It is only available to governments or to parties that are on government delegations, so it might be possible maybe to contact the U.K. and ask them if they would provide an information document which could be shared.  I will note -- I'm sorry, I don't know -- the pages aren't numbered on the submission, but the U.K., the summary for the U.K. submission on Question 5 has a very high level reference that identifies some of those topics, and I would call that to everyone's attention because I think it is a useful discussion about the -- first of all, it recognizes the mutual recognition of the respective roles, but it does go on to identify some of the activities that were mentioned in the -- in the U.K. submission to the ITU working group.
 I wanted to make a couple of comments about, I wonder if perhaps on Question 14 -- and I think there may be a couple of other questions like that which are specific to particular areas that need to be -- need to evolve very rapidly in order to ensure that all citizens of the world can use the Internet and the World Wide Web.  Maybe we might take those questions and put them in a category to come back to and -- because it may be that we will not, in this working group, be able to be very specific but we might be able to summarize that the interest of those who responded to the questionnaire showed strong support for continued work being done on these particular issues.  And this one is the development of local language content.  I wouldn't want to lose the submissions, but I -- I agree with Brazil that it may be too granular an area for us to spend a lot of time on.  And we didn't ask questions about every other issue.
 And then finally, I think Question 7, I guess I'm really quite surprised that there's not a lot of flags up to talk about Question 7.  So I will say that I think it is a question that we need to talk about a lot more.  And if we don't talk about it now, then maybe we could talk about it tomorrow whenever we get the Question 4 documents and come back and talk about this question in more detail.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn.  Before I give the floor to Parminder, I turn to the U.K. and ask, for she has already the answer, and my question is, there was reference to the ITU working group public policy issues and the contributions came from the U.K.  Do you think there's a possibility of making this available to the group here?  Thank you.
 >>UNITED KINGDOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank everyone here for such positive feedback on that paper which was put together in a multistakeholder group in the U.K.  I'm sure it would be perfectly fine for us to share it with the group here.  I'm just double-checking with London, but I can't foresee any problem.  I'll get a copy sent to the Secretariat so they can make sure that everybody has access to it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Brazil.
 >>BRAZIL: Sorry, Mr. Chair.  Not -- just not to lose not only that, I made the reference also because Mr. Ed Vaizey made a presentation on this at the IGF meeting so that might also be a source, the speech he delivered captured the main points.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  So probably if Mr. Vaizey's speech is available, it would be also useful -- his speech during the IGF, it would be useful.  But I think there's a transcript, so -- which is available on the web, on the IGF website, which can be consulted as well.  And it's open.
 Okay.  So having said that, Parminder.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair.  One of my points was undisputed by Ambassador (saying name).  I do not have access to the U.K. document submitted to the ITU, but I remember sitting through the first session in the IGF and the minister detailed four levels of governmental role as they saw in Internet Governance and I nearly agreed with the whole framework there.  And having heard that framework and agreeing to that, I'm a little unclear about certain conclusions of the discussion and I think this particular discussion is important also to figure out what mechanisms are necessary.  Because after my early intervention which said that the main point here is the participation and decision-making, the rest -- everything is fine, number of consultations, back and forth, you know, drafts, et cetera.  But decision-making is in terms of public policymaking in democracies and after my intervention I had a lot of people saying no, they really want other stakeholders to have an equal role in decision-making in public policy processes.  Now that really kind of freezes my mind about what are we talking about here.  Because public policy and the role of (indiscernible) in public policy is not an issue of Internet Governance.  It's an issue of global democracy and it's an issue of national democracies, and the proposition that corporations and even citizen society groups would fit and we equally participate, have equal role in public policymaking, it's something completely beyond my democratic understanding.  And I think there's something which I'm missing here because I don't think that could be what people are saying because it's purely post-democratic narrative for people to say that no -- yes, we're talking public policies and we are talking that non-governmental stakeholders will have an equal role in decision-making.  
 So I think whoever make that proposal, I would like to hear more about what really they mean.  Because at one point we were ready to separate the technical part of it, the standard setting, logical infrastructure that's different, people can have an equal role, so can we separate, call public policymaking.  And people say no, we still need equal role in decision-making in public policymaking.  That's beyond my understanding.  For me that's the Holy Grail of democracy is what I already said.  And if that point is resolved, then my mind could get out of this stalemate of what really is the difference of view between different people here.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder, for that thought-provoking contribution and probably those who propose the multistakeholder approach can give you examples how it is working in practice.  I can see a lot of flags.  Saudi Arabia are welcome to.
 >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to everyone.  In regards to the list of three of the questions, about the roles and responsibilities of all of the stakeholders, my intervention was much covered by from Parminder in regards to the decision-making process.  And this is what I would like to hear more about because when I heard the discussion, it seems that like if the roles of the government has been actually implemented since 2005 and now we are examining the role of the governments in regards to the Internet Governance, but in the reality the role of the governments in regards to the Internet Governance has not been implemented.  I know that there's been an advisory group, but it does not reach to have a decision-making -- I mean, a decision-making mechanism in regards to Internet matters.
 What we're talking about here is the international public policy that is -- relates to the sovereignty of the states and relates to the cooperation between states to another state.  I was in Korea and the cyberspace conference just recently, and I see some faces who attended that conference.  I mean, there was a big number of foreign ministers and most of them talked about that we need cooperation in regards to issues that has to be decided by governments.  We cannot have a good faith in regards to the whole private sector and the technical community in regards to aspects.  We have to have a decision made by governments in regards to the child, for example, pornography, child online protection.  If there was no decision made by states in this regards, we cannot prevent or have something in that matter.  For example, there was a big discussion about the privacy, the recent talks about the privacy and that privacy and freedom does not conflict each other.  But there has to be a very high guidelines.  I heard, too, the Swedish foreign minister, he declared seven principles, global principles to be adopted in regards to the surveillance.  That's the things that we -- we -- I'm talking about being a government, that needs to be very high level in terms of international public policy.  We're not intervening in the day-to-day operational -- I mean, operation, because we don't want to drift from the role of the governments.  Governments does not have interest to go very low in technicality and how things functioning and the standards and all these things.  We need to set principles that we negotiate, we have a mechanism that governments can negotiate to each other, governments can solve problems based on agreed international public policies.  
 I will stop at this, but in regards to the roles of the -- of the stakeholders, we still believe that -- I mean, Tunis Agenda, even if it's been nine years, still, I mean, the roles is very reasonable in regards to, for example, paragraph 35.  Wherever there's matters relates to the sovereignty of the states, it's the right of the states to tackle these matters.  When we talk about the technical policies, that is the international organizations, the technicality and so on.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia.  I would like to ask you, all of us, in fact, that once again, the way I started that we have a mandate and probably we should stick to the mandate and the mandate was established by the United Nations General Assembly.  So I really recommend you to discuss the issues we have agreed upon in the first meeting, to concentrate on the questions we agreed on in the first meeting and to follow up on.
 I can see Sweden, India, and -- I can see Japan.  And finally I have Joy, remote participation, and Jimson.  After Jimson we shall break for -- we shall break.  And I promise, Brazil, you will be the first speaker after the coffee break.  So Sweden, India, Japan, Joy, Jimson.
 >>SWEDEN: Thank you.  Well, just to say that to us enhanced cooperation is not only about decision-making, but about cooperation in a broader sense and about dialogue.  But even if you're talking about development of policy, I think it's important to do that in an open, transparent multistakeholder model.  If we're talking about decisions, legislation, for instance, obviously at the national level, that's what parliaments do.  But when we're talking about enhanced cooperation, for us it's much broader than the decision-making part.  Sometimes, obviously, states come to that as well.  We have to make certain decisions, adopt certain treaties, adopt recommendations, so on.  But when we're looking at enhanced cooperation, we see that in a much broader sense about cooperation, about dialogue, about policy dialogue, and Policy Development, because Policy Development is also much broader than just decision-making.  So that's where we're coming from.  Thank you.
 >> (indiscernible) 
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: India.
 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  We'd like to make two quick comments.  First, I think some pertinent questions have been raised about the definition of multistakeholder approach.  I think at some stage during our deliberations we clarify this.  I think there are issues relating to -- dimensions have been brought up.  One, as I said, at the policy-making level, consultation level to leading (indiscernible) and other sort of relative roles of the various stakeholders in the decision-making process.  I think if you are planning to write this particular phrase, I think it's not a bad idea that we eventually lead up to defining what it means in this working group.  That's one solution.
 Secondly, coming to the specific group of questions that you have reflected, I think we have very -- very clearly said that enhanced cooperation is also a dynamic process.  It is a dynamic process because the Internet -- the way it is evolving is dynamic.  So we cannot have static solutions.  The solutions also have to be dynamic.  But this does not take away the responsibility of this group today to decide to sort of postpone decisions, to postpone that talk, we will not do it today but we will do it later.  Because it's so dynamic we can't really perhaps sort of put our finger on a particular process or a particular mechanism.  I think this is important.
 Bearing that in mind, we have in our replies also defined a large number of areas, largely drawing upon the previous working group which just touched on this.  What are the specific roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders.  When we refer to Tunis paragraph number 55, I don't think we're trying to create a kind of silo.  No, the idea is not to create a silo.  The idea is to broadly define what is the relative roles and responsibilities.  But this, I think, has been moved on.  I think this is a question in which we have in our reply tried to elaborate a number of pages where there are relative responsibilities of various stakeholders.  I think if you -- we could act on this list, and I'm sure there are ways to do it because as I said, we are -- we are encountering a new -- new developments in the use of Internet.  
 Going to Question 6 and 7, I think these are closely interlinked as some colleagues have pointed out a little while ago, I think to be very frank, I think governments are also trying to discover what is their role in the Internet.  Today the challenge is that.  It's not the other way around, that we are trying to define the role of other stakeholders.  But I think governments also are very mindful, very cautious, about what are the mechanisms that we look at evolving.  Does not in any way sort of lessen or make the dynamic nature of Internet to stifle.  It should become a platform for innovation, platform for greater social economic development, because the tools that we are employing back home using this medium -- I mean, I'm sure we all do in our own country, but in India we are very proud of what we're doing.  I don't think governments are interested in any way trying to stifle this process.  I think that's to be very clear, and we are very committed to that particular process.
 And this -- while saying that in the relative roles and responsibilities, when you talk of governments, since there is a question about how do we deal with this, since there would be some areas where there is a public policy space that the governments ought to make decisions because they answer to their own people.  The medium is Internet here.  We agree to that.  But there are two -- but the way the convergence of technologies are taking place today, that everything -- any transaction that an individual in society will do will eventually touch upon the Internet space.  So there is definitely a responsibility for the governments, both in the national space as well as in the international or the multi -- some colleagues may not like the word "multi-lateral" but in the larger international space, I think it is precisely there that we are coming in.  It would only enhance the processes.  As I said, it is not with the intention to stifle them.  That being clearly said, it is -- on the reply to Question 7, we are looking at further enhancing the role of the stakeholders, other stakeholders, because the big question here 6 and 7, we're touching on governments in one question and other stakeholders.  Again, it is not -- I don't think we should vote on the part of saying that there's a prioritization here.  No, I don't think that is (indiscernible), but the way it is structured I think the replies are also provided in that manner.  We're open to this idea as to how we need to define -- if it is -- if it is a proposition in the room that how do we define the roles of other stakeholders without -- again, the issue is not to undermine the existing roles.  It is to see how further it can be enhanced and see that everything can go together.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India.  It's very thought-provoking and, thank you for the remarks.  Japan.
 >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  In addition to the role and responsibilities of various stakeholders, I think it is very important to consider the cooperation among the various stakeholder to facilitate enhanced cooperation and to address the international public policy issues related to the Internet, how to incorporate each of it effectively.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan.  I have Joy.  Joy Liddicoat.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  A couple of points to touch on (indiscernible) this discussion about roles and (indiscernible) I know we're focusing on the role of governments but I think it's very (indiscernible) that enhanced cooperation can't be tweaked to (indiscernible) stakeholder design.  (indiscernible) I do think it's important we define (indiscernible).
 Civil society participation is (indiscernible) to be strengthening.  And I do think it is important that (indiscernible) part of the Tunis Agenda in relation to the roles of civil society and government is inadequate in linking civil society's role with (indiscernible) and not working well with government.  
 For example, civil society does have a key role (indiscernible).  And it is particularly important in terms of the (indiscernible) to governments, specifically analyzing and supporting governments is positively challenging in purporting government action.
 So I think in that respect, it is important to recognize that it is government's responsibility as well as role.  And this is something we have touched on before in our working group discussions.  We have responsibility, for example, (indiscernible).  I think that is something that can be (indiscernible) debate that can be.
 I would just like to support the comments from governments of India and Sweden in relation to the (indiscernible) in relation to the government relationships with each other and equalizing those relationships.  (indiscernible) submissions from examples (indiscernible) is a third round in relation to (indiscernible).  I would just -- support of some of the other participants to think it is helpful of the roles of governments (indiscernible).  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Joy.  Unfortunately, we had some sound problems.  Your message came through, however.  In case you think you can just write down in short summary, what you said, it would be very useful for the record and for further considerations.  There were a lot of points which did not come through.
 The last speaker before the coffee break, Jimson.
 >> JIMSON OLUFUYE:  Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair.  I would like to first thank my brother Parminder for his sincere desire to know why -- (indiscernible), for example, wants to be involved into decision-making.  And also want to thank the distinguished representative of India for his own position and Sweden for the response.
 Well, I'm coming from the private sector in Nigeria.  And I witnessed the dynamics of Internet development in our country way back in 2000.  By that time, there was serious problems.  And the government listened to the cry of the private sector.  We need to work together.  And so a policy was developed together with the government.  And we all agreed, we start together, agree on the framework of implementation.  And today it is a success story.
 Nigeria recalled the I.S. connection rate with mobile Internet in Africa today, what was unimaginable ten years ago.
 And three days ago, when it comes to electrical infrastructure, the government implemented a position agreed together along with the private sector concern that the electricity needs to be privatized.  And the government handed over everything about electricity to the private sector three days ago.  
 So there is a momentum going on.  And I'm happy the representative of India said we don't want to be (indiscernible), we don't want to be hindered.  We also want to really move forward and transform the socioeconomic life of global citizens and citizens from developing nations in particular.  
 And if that's our objective, why shouldn't we -- if you look at the Internet infrastructure, if we boil down as Virat said, the private sector implements a number of these decisions, then what is wrong if we all -- because we have the agenda of the global citizens in mind.  Based on the fact that we're enhancing cooperation, why can't we all listen together and then enhance the framework for decision-making?  
 Yes, we've been discussing the IGF.  Very productive.  We now understand the processes.  But to firm up a way forward, I think it just makes sense for private sector in particular -- and I believe civil society to play a very strong role -- to be involved.  And together we will make one Internet forward for the global socioeconomic well-being of our people.  That is my thinking, and that is my response to what I think the sincere request from my brother Parminder, why private sector should be part of it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Jimson.  I think we had a very fruitful discussion this afternoon.  We are going to continue it after the coffee break.  I suggest we have a 20-minute coffee break.  And after, when we come back, it will be Brazil who will take the floor, I promise.
 [ Break ]
 [ Gavel ]
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Ladies and gentlemen, can I ask you to take your seats, please.  I would like to resume in one minute.
 So welcome back to the meeting, ladies and gentlemen.  Phil?  Can you take your seats, please.
 [ Gavel ]
 So before the coffee break, I promised Brazil the floor.  I have one announcement.  During our discussions, there was a reference to the U.K. contributions to the upcoming Council Working Group in the ITU.  You have hard copies of the contribution here, I'm not mistaken.  So please take your copy.  I think it's at the end of the table.
 So having said that, I pass the floor to Brazil.
 >>BRAZIL:   Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Well, I'd like to make a few comments that might sound very obvious but I think that in light of the discussion we have had before break, I think it might be worthwhile making.
 First of all, I think -- and the Chair has mentioned this a number of times -- that we are not supposed and we are not mandated and we should not redraft the Tunis Agenda.  So the context, we have the mandate and we have the Tunis Agenda.  If we go back to the Tunis Agenda, paragraph 35, which spells the roles of stakeholders -- and I take into account the sense that we should not look at these as something written in stone because particularly, for example, with regard to civil society, we must maybe have a more open mind in regard to the roles.
 But as regards the role of government, it is very clearly spelled out that the policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of states.  So I would like to echo what was mentioned by Parminder and others that may be one basic assumption we should -- that should guide our work is in cooperation with what's in the Tunis Agenda that's public policy for international-related lies within government.
 But then as we look to the paragraph on enhanced cooperation, there is the differentiation, a clear differentiation, that must be made between those international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and those technical and operational matters.  And I think the differentiation is already there.  It's not something that we should ourselves decide if we are making or not the differentiation between public policy -- it is already there.  What I think the contribution that could come from our group, that would be a major contribution, would be to put some more meat and interpret and elaborate on this.
 And this brings us back to the issue of separating the different issues having categories.  If as a result of our group, we can lead to a better understanding of what are those technical and operational issues, how they are being dealt with now, how from our perspective of enhanced cooperation something could be done to improve this -- and from our perspectives very clearly there is a need for information, for governments, even if they are not involved with this technical and operational daily activities to be more informed and feeling themselves also as involved in a way what's being done there is being cooperated and acknowledged.  I think this is something that is missing until now.
 And, again, on the issue of public policies, to identify those -- to have different categories and in each one to specify whether this is being dealt with in some forum, how it is being done, what can be improved, and in cases there are no home, no -- I think as the APC has mentioned, are orphaned issues.  What could we come about?
 I'm saying this because I saw in previous interventions the kind of rhetorical discussion that I think we should not let ourselves engage.  On one hand, some parties are defending the role of one stakeholder that we should not put in place multilateral institutions that do not take into account... I think this is fully acknowledged and understood.  What we need is more clarity with regard to very specific issues, categories, what we should do about this to make the spirit what is contained in the Tunis Agenda a reality.  
 Again, we are not reformulating the Tunis Agenda.  We are implementing and we are trying to come up with recommendations.  But, again, the debates and the prerequisite is to have a clear understanding.
 And I refer to the text of the Tunis Agenda because some of the things that were said before in a way might be interpreted as seeking to reinterpret what is in the Tunis Agenda.  Public policy issue is something that lies with government because it's part of the government mandate to do this.
 But what are those issues?  What are those areas that should lie -- that should fall under this category and how that could be done?  I think this is the kind of approach we need.  And, again, we have to take a very open view in acknowledging everything that has been done, the decentralized system that should be fully taken into account and incorporated (indiscernible) but also take into account I think in some areas, also some particular mechanism should be -- this is our view.  But we are open, of course, to the discussion and see how that can be addressed, even if within an existing mechanism.
 But I think this is the kind of discussion we might have.  Otherwise, we will be falling back into rhetorical discussions.  And I think this would not -- especially in light of the time constraints, we have not led to very concrete outcomes.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Ambassador.  I think we try to avoid rhetoric and rhetorical discussions.  And as far as I'm concerned, I would also like to avoid going into definitions.  I prefer to have some kind of common understanding.  But we are not supposed to come up with definitions, which will take up all our time.  I'm sure, if we can come clear to some kind of common understanding, probably it will be sufficient for future work.
 I don't deny that definitions are extremely useful, and they give clarity.  But probably if we want to have some result as a result of our work, then we have to avoid that.
 United States.
 >>UNITED STATES:   Thank you, Chair.  I just wanted to take the opportunity of this discussion on several questions to react to some of the comments that have been made in the room and evoke perhaps some of the pieces of our submission that might come into play.
 First of all, I want to thank Saudi Arabia for their reference to the Seoul cyber conference and just add that, you know, it was part of a process of conferences beginning in London two years ago and then Budapest last year and will continue on into The Hague now next year.
 And as that set of conferences has transpired, has become increasingly more multistakeholder in its participation and its input and, also, particularly on a set of issues dealing with international security, cybersecurity, combating cybercrime and capacity-building.  And I think the discussions there mirror much what they do in other venues in that they address areas (dropped audio) behavior, for example, and also in areas where cooperation is a real key in collaboration across stakeholders.  And global collaboration is the key.  In that sense, I would really like to affiliate with the elegant comments made by Sweden on the fact that solving problems does not always need a public policy process or a decisional process.
 That goes very much to the call for practicality and practical measures that we've heard from both colleagues from India and Brazil in addressing what is a very dynamic environment and decision-making processes are very difficult, have a great difficulty in addressing those in a timely manner in what is such a fast-moving environment.
 Therefore, enabling factors are important.  And that is something that we think may be evoked in the U.K. proposal that we have been discussing but also to some extent in our submission, that national frameworks can enable not only consultation and engagement with stakeholders in a national context for national public policy making but also for enabling international cooperation whether it be building transparency with counterparts in other countries, whether it be addressing confidence-building measures or to evoke the full conference, once again, affirming norms of behavior.  But importantly for engagement and collaboration on what those practical measures can be don't need a decisional process necessarily to collaborate to find solutions.
 And then, lastly, there was a comment made about the responsibility of governments in addition to the role of governments.  And absolutely we are not saying that there is no responsibility for governments in this area, but it's not only the responsibility of the governments.
 So I'd really like to leave sort of three notions that encapsulate our response to this set of questions which I hope provide some examples of how not only we undertake in a consultative and multistakeholder process in our public policy making at home but our efforts towards empowering, enabling, and engaging roles for each of the stakeholders in any given particular policy or functional aspect.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, United States.
 I would like to remind you that for the scribes and the remote participants, it will be very advantageous if you can speak up loudly a bit slower.
 >>UNITED STATES:   Sorry. Thank you for the reminder.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   It is not only for you, for all of us.  Don't take it personally.  No, no, no, no.
 [ Laughter ]
 I perfectly got what you wanted to say so I have no problem with that.
 Anyone want to take the floor concerning -- Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Continuing from the comments made by distinguished delegate from Brazil and then United States, on the role of governments, typically as we discussed this issue -- and I think Parminder raised the point just sort of directly and eminently -- that this is typically a role for the governments, to represent the interests of all stakeholders at international fora.
 There are many U.N. bodies that see that process.  However, the Tunis Agenda which was a result of perhaps the world's largest multistakeholder meeting, approximately 9,500 or so -- not quite sure what the numbers are -- which included very large participation from the government, recognized the role for other stakeholders on an equal footing along with the government thereby also recognizing the fact that where Internet governance was concerned, other stakeholders had to be brought on board.  And this was, in some ways, innovative and a deviation.  
 So we should remember that -- and remind ourselves as we discuss this because we all agreed we don't want to redefine the Tunis Agenda.  It is the Tunis Agenda that brings in stakeholders in a way that many other international documents don't in many, many other areas of work.
 On the issue of public policy at a high level and not doing day-to-day which is the other piece that was made out with regards to government, I think it is important to note that what might be high-level public policy for one is day-to-day for the other.  For example, there are organizations that handle CIRs every day and for them it is day-to-day.  But for governments, it might be a global dialogue in a public policy discussion.
 So there is this distinction that we hope to make.  This fine distinction is not that easy to make.  I'm just taking one case, but we can go with child pornography.  We can talk about something as basic as "Internet for all" which would certainly be a sovereign declaration by most governments.  And I might add that not a single government in the world, at least today, would be able to do that with the involvement of the technical communities and the private sector.  So even high-level principles.  
 Case in point, at the time the Tunis Agenda was written, there were 2 billion mobile connections in the world.  There are 7 billion today.  90% of those have been provided by the private sector, not something that the Tunis Agenda could have envisaged.
 There were 52 million connections in India.  There are 900 million connections today, almost all provided by the private sector with a lot of innovation and help from academy and other stakeholders.
 Internet users, the same.  950 million around the world at the time Tunis Agenda was written.  2.7 billion today.  Vast majority of those are on private sector networks.
 In India, 38 million at the end of 2005.  Today, 170 million.
 So I think as this process evolves -- (echo) -- that role is fairly defined and, as I said, something that's very high level, access for all.
 Everybody hearing an echo?  Should I go again?  Okay.  I think it's better now.
 But let me just directly and quickly go to the sections of the Tunis Agenda that are often invoked in discussing the roles of the government.  
 Section 29, it actually states in no uncertain terms "with the full involvement of the governments."  Now, it need not have said that.  In fact, says "with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, the civil society, and the international organizations" which recognizes the fact that they use the word "full involvement" and immediately after that it states "all the stakeholders."  By the way, it leaves out technical community and academia, which is a section by itself here, which shows how much the world has developed.  There are five principles here that were not mentioned in the Tunis Agenda as we discussed Section 29.
 Section 31, "based on full participation of all stakeholders," it uses the word "full participation of all stakeholders."
 Section 60, that is also referred to, which talks about that "the current mechanisms require attention are not adequately" -- "which are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms."  
 Now, this doesn't mean that they cannot be currently addressed.  It says they are not currently being addressed.  And there are a lot of suggestions in response to the questionnaire which we have seen which says we can expand, improve, enhance the role of IGF and any of the other mechanisms that currently exist.  It does not say it cannot.  It says "may not currently."
 Again, 68:  Governments in an equal role.  And it talks about development of public policy.  It does not say "decision-making" in public policy.  It does not use the word "decision-making."
 So if you were to -- 69, same, uses the word "government on an equal footing."  There would be those who could interpret that an equal footing with the other stakeholders.  It is also a matter of interpretation.
 But if you were to focus our entire attention on the Tunis Agenda, then there is sort of sufficient language here which can be interpreted as one that lends itself to an equal participation for all the stakeholders, including some that were no envisaged at the time the Tunis Agenda was written.
 The last piece that I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, is that the products, the services, the offerings that are coming out and the innovation that is coming out can become a casualty to any public policy decisions that are not taking into consideration at an equal footing all the stakeholders in the room.  And that would be a bit of a tragedy.  And, therefore, I think we should be careful as we interpret the Tunis Agenda one way or the other.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Virat.  I think it was a very useful reminder about the different paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda.  Virat relates that we look at the Tunis Agenda with a fresh eye.
 Sweden, please.
 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you.  Well, just very briefly because I think most have already been said by the last intervention we heard.  But I think it's very important that we read the Tunis Agenda as a whole and not cherry pick too much specific articles there.  
 And I wanted also to highlight Article 69, for example.  But I think that is very important to keep in mind.
 I would also like to take the opportunity because our colleague from Saudi Arabia mentioned the Seoul conference on cybersecurity, and that was also mentioned by our U.S. colleague and how it has been -- how that is an evolving process that is to a larger extent also including all stakeholders.
 But since our minister made certain remarks there about  proposals on potential principles on surveillance, I think it's very important to keep in mind in that context that that was a product that he presented, a product of extensive multistakeholder work and multistakeholder dialogue.  And I think that's also -- I just wanted to make that remark given that it was explicitly brought up here.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Sweden.
 Just a thought.  We are here as a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to fulfill a mandate.  We are here to evaluate, to review the inputs which have been submitted by stakeholders.  I understand it doesn't exclude that we revisit the Tunis Agenda.  It doesn't exclude to refer to other events which have taken place.  I would like you to concentrate on our main task.
 Parminder.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  The main point I wish to make was just a correction to what my colleague Virat spoke about.  There is no mention in Tunis Agenda of an equal footing among stakeholders.  It is only mentioned in 69 in a specific relevance of governments in terms of "equal footing of all stakeholders."  I'm not presenting my views on this issue, just a correction of the fact.
 I also heard with a lot of interest Sweden's and U.S.' interventions on the decision-making procedures and relevance of the role of different stakeholders.  And I did hear them say that not every issue requires a decision-making process or a public policy response in which I completely agree that, yes, a lot of stuff doesn't require that kind of response.  And that also is a part of Internet governance systems.
 However, as long as we are talking about actual public policy decisions, that still remains that decision-making process has to be done by representative bodies.
 And just a last part, because this issue has come in two or three interventions, that why private sector should have a role in decision-making is because it lays the infrastructure.  And that's a rather new kind of argument because private sector organizes productive systems of the society in all sectors.  Medical practices are based on medicines which are exclusively made by the private sector.  Surgical instruments are made by private sector.  It does not, therefore, mean that pharma companies have a veto on health policies in any country.
 So I think the fact that somebody has the productive resources is not a good logic to say that they have a role in public policy making.  So since that came -- that logic came as explaining why there should be a role here, I thought I should make a comment on that as well.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Parminder.  Majed.
 Saudi Arabia, sir.
 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My intervention is about when I heard our colleagues try to explain the Tunis Agenda, I mean, item by item.  I would like our interventionists to concentrate on the mandate of our work.  
 However, I would rather if the paragraphs that has been read in full not just to single out some of the words there just to give the real meaning for that paragraph, for example, 68 and 79, because when it talks about the equal footing, it was following the sentence to enable governments in an equal footing.  So that means the governments in an equal footing.
 However, Mr. Chairman, this is not the place to discuss this.  And I would like not to see that we are just arguing about Tunis Agenda and trying to interpret it, as, I mean, everyone differently.
 But in regards to the multistakeholder model, I noticed that even in the many conferences, they bring this issue that some governments speaks as a government, some governments with the multistakeholder model and the others is against the multistakeholder model.  And this is not true.  Saudi Arabia supports the multistakeholder model.  However, the reality or the fact that people trying to not talk about the roles of the multistakeholder in that model, that's the -- I mean, what's the matter for us.  We agree on the multistakeholder model, but we need to implement the roles for each stakeholder.  And it is becoming annoying for me just to see in many fora that people just stress the multistakeholder model.  
 And if Tunis Agenda actually recognizes the multistakeholder model, it identified the roles of the multistakeholder model.  And what we want as a government, speaking from Saudi Arabia, is to enable the governments to implement its role based on Tunis Agenda and based on the -- what happened after the nine years still. we need to enable governments to take the role and responsibilities.
 And in regards to the Seoul conference, it's a very good conference and but still the purpose of such conference is to bring the -- raise the awareness, and it's a very good conference to see the different perspectives in a very high level from countries.  But at the end, it's for raising the awareness and perspectives of governments or other stakeholders.  And for me, this is still missing something.  Missing recommendations or policies and output that when we meet we agree on something, we have something like a public policy that we can implement when we leave.  And that's what we need in regards to the enhanced cooperation.  We can talk and talk and talk, very good talks and we agree in this talk, but we need to see how we implement this.  And that's what we need to have an international public policy, to solve the issues we face now in the interim.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia.  I think you have formulated the role of this group as well because we are supposed to give recommendations concerning implementation of the enhanced cooperation.  So I think all of us are aware that at the end of the day we should come up with recommendations.  
 I can see Marilyn asking for the floor and then Virat.  Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  I'm struck by a couple of things, and one of them is that for many of us who lived through the four years of the two phases of the WSIS, and participated actively in the final word selection that forms the Tunis Agenda, I think we need to remember that there were two phases and there are -- also the WSIS outcome documents also include the principles, the declaration of principles.  Because I think perhaps we're losing a little bit of vision that we came away from the WSIS.  If I recall, when we started the first phase of the world summit, stakeholders were not allowed in the room and governments were meeting with all good intentions, talking about highly technical issues but without the participation of the -- of the stakeholders who bring a unique understanding.  And who often bring not just technical information but also understanding about legal structures, understanding about social structures, understanding about services and products in the same way that government representatives do but with different -- with different areas of perhaps accountability or focus.  Paragraph 72 in the Tunis Agenda, I think the -- our colleague from Sweden reminded us of something that is very wise words and that is, this document was agreed to by heads of state as a totality.  In fact, heads of state didn't sign off on a single paragraph.  They signed off on the entire document.  And there's a lot in paragraph 72 that also talks about the role of the IGF in discussing public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance, facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different crosscutting international policy public issues regarding the Internet and discussing issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.  So I would just think that as we go away for the evening we probably all want to think about how we take into account the agreements that were negotiated and how we look at our assignment.
 We will also have tomorrow morning the initial mapping document to look at and to see if that helps us in thinking about how issues are being addressed and where they're being addressed, and what the satisfaction level is about how different issues are being addressed and it will bring us perhaps to identifying gaps and to being able to think about what spaces and places can be turned to and whether there is a need for any new places and spaces.
 I'm sorry to hear Saudi Arabia say that it's becoming annoying.  I think maybe fatigued is the word, perhaps, not to -- to hear us talk about multistakeholder but I think what I'm detecting is perhaps a different -- different parties have a different expectation about what multistakeholder means and whether multistakeholder is bottom-up participatory and actively engaged at all stages versus consultative.  And that may be a difference of opinion by some parties versus others.  For myself, as a business representative, I think the issue for multistakeholder is that it must be bottom-up, it must be participatory, and that governments, I think, share with citizens of their countries and of the world the interest in making the most informed, most effective, most responsible policies possible.  And to do that, we need to put as many brains and as many perspectives into the discussion as possible.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn.  I believe this group is on the right track.  We have the brilliant brains here, we have the experts here from all stakeholders, and with all the hope that we shall come up with some brilliant recommendations.
 Are there any other (indiscernible), Brazil.
 >>BRAZIL: Just a very brief comment, and taking what has just been said by Marilyn Cade and recalling the audience that prepared at the beginning of these -- holding the side around Internet Governance with the exclusion of civil society and now we are thankfully incorporating discussions.  But one thing that disturbs me at some point as a diplomat that in some sense we see it to be reverse movement.  Governments that were in the front line, in the limelight in the beginning, are now -- there's a clear movement to exclude government, it seems on some -- at least from some -- at least from some -- specifically the beauty of the pact of the Tunis Agenda, the outcome documents emerging from the World Summit on Information Society to recognize that the different stakeholders have different roles and responsibilities.  They should work together.  They should work mutually to find ways as Marilyn Cade said to lead to very informed decisions, to provide an environment to assist everyone in this collective endeavor.  And it is somewhat disturbing to see some -- sometime there is a confusion about this, and maybe in the minds of some it may be the lack of historical experience of some actions undertaken by governments.  (indiscernible) maybe not to allow governments to fulfill their roles in regard to -- specifically in the issues we have before us, that is public policy.  So there is -- it is -- maybe disturbing is not the right word.  But some people say no, let's not leave this to governments.  Let's lead together because that's the spirit from -- that is the spirit from Tunis multistakeholder.  That's recognizing that each stakeholder has different role and responsibilities.  And I find for governments clearly a role for public policy.  I think the -- our task is to interpret this in a way that is consistent with the spirit of the Tunis Agenda.  But saying that an apple is an apple, a pear is a pear, not making a decision, otherwise the discussion is -- I think the kind of confusion that has been taking place over the years found in the -- the cacophony and the lack of a common understanding of differentiation of situation that requires different responses will not be healthy if we do not guide our work by very clear understanding of the picture, of the differentiation of the situations.  And there, specifically trying to figure out what lies -- what falls under this category of public policy that will require, let's say, governments to be enabled to fulfill their roles with the fullest seasoned participation of stakeholders to the benefit of all.  But I would again -- I see that kind of, let's say, reversal of the situation and a movement in the direction that is not also, I think, the right direction.  I think we should be working together collectively, a joint effort with mutual respect, mutual recognition of different roles and responsibilities and be open on all parts to fully engage to the benefit of the  eco-system as a whole.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil.  I can see Grace, but I have been advised that there is some problem with the microphone for remote participation so I ask your indulgence and I would like to suspend the meeting for about three minutes.  So bear with me, and we shall resume in three minutes time.
 ( break )
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for your patience.  I think we cannot solve this problem but it doesn't affect our meeting.  I'm really sorry about the remote participants.  We have about 10, 12 minutes to go until the end of this meeting, and I can see two nameplates.  So first Grace and then (saying name) and at the end of the meeting I would like to turn to the observers, if they have anything to add, to say or any observation, and then I would like to conclude our meeting for today.  So Grace, please, take the floor.
 >>GRACE GITHAIGA: It's just some very quick -- very quick comments.  One on multistakeholder and one on roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders.  And it's just to support what Marilyn was raising, that multistakeholder is really -- must ensure participation from all stakeholder groups.  It also needs to be inclusive, transparent, and accountable and must be global in nature and needs to be managed in such a way that none of the stakeholders or regions can determine the outcome without the cooperation of all other stakeholder groups and regions.  
 And in terms of responsibilities of the different stakeholders, I feel there needs to recognize that the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders in Internet Governance cannot be fixed and they will vary depending on the issue or the process or task at hand.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace.  India.
 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  I think after the intervention by our distinguished ambassador from Brazil, I think not much is left to say.  We also have same as -- concerns in terms of the direction which we are going.  And again, we would like to just flag this issue that between enhanced cooperation and IGF, I don't think we're talking one against the other.  I don't think that is the right way to go, if you compare them and then we say we're doing good there and everything is covered there and thereby -- the whole purpose of the working group is perhaps not there, and so I think that -- we should not try and sort of reduce the importance and the relevance of this particular working group.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India.  It was not my understanding that we are going against each other.  It is my understanding that we are talking about complementary processes.  As I mentioned this morning, interdependent processes.  Or rather independent.  And we may discuss eventually the same issues in both places, but probably the accents are a bit different and the outcome may be different.  
 So today we have gone through three groups of issues.  We have discussed quite a lot of questions, so we have a kind of feel for the questions.  And I'm really glad that we have very useful and very fruitful discussions today and it's very promising for the coming two days.  
 I'm turning now to the observers, if you have anything to add or complement.  Anyone from the room, any additional comments?  In case you don't have any comments, so I would like to see you tomorrow at 10:00.  Hopefully by then we are going to have this spreadsheet document from the voluntary task force and we shall resume tomorrow at 10:00.  I hope we can go through in the morning the remaining two groups and to go into the deeper discussion on some of the issues with the hope of coming with some recommendations at the end of Friday.  So have a nice -- yes, Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Just a housekeeping question.  Can we leave some of the documents here, will the room be locked or should we carry everything back?  Because there's a lot of paperwork here.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: I am advised that you better take everything with you.  So thank you for your active participation, and I wish you a very nice evening tonight.  Have a nice sleep for those who are having jet lag, and hope to see you tomorrow at 10:00.  Thank you.
 ***Live scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***  
-------------- next part --------------
 7 November, 2013
 10:00 a.m.
 Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
 Geneva, Switzerland
 
 
 >>CHAIR MAJORS:  Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.  Please take your seats.  I'm happy to see you.  You seem to be fresh and ready to work, even though it's a beautiful day outside.  So I would like to give you a short summary of what we have done yesterday and what I propose for today.  
 So yesterday we started with the introductory remarks and the most important part is the mandate we have so everybody is aware of the mandate and I would like to continue our work in this spirit.  We also agreed on the modalities of the work, that is, we are going to base our discussions on the contributions and we have a document to help us, that is the summary, or the analysis of responses.  Which there was an attempt to streamline and downsize the contributions.
 We also agreed that we are going to discuss the questions in groups, and we had a very good discussion on Group 1 which was about enhanced cooperation, meaning significance and degree of implementation.  And there was a kind of agreement that we can we may consider it as the glass half full, half empty.  I expressed my wish that we approach in an optimistic way, that is, the glass is full -- half full, and we are going to make it complete.  That is our task.
 In the second group we had public policy issues, mechanisms, and question pertaining to the IGF.  And there was a proposal to map different issues.  There was a voluntary task force which promised me to have the document by this morning, and I'm happy to report to you that the document has been prepared.  So I congratulate to the participants of this voluntary task group and they have done a great job.
 So after that in the afternoon we discussed the questions pertaining to Group 3, which is about the role of the stakeholders, especially the governments.  I sensed a kind of agreement on the multistakeholder approach.  Naturally there was -- there were divergences as to the interpretation, what it means.  Some said that the role of government may be underestimated or even belittled, and there was some discussion about the interpretation of the Tunis Agenda.  It is also felt that the Internet seems changing and it has changed rapidly since 2005 and there are emerging issues, and these emerging issues also create public policy issues.
 So basically I think that's what -- where we stopped yesterday.  I think we had a very good and constructive discussion and what is very important to me, that there was a kind of mutual trust.  So I really congratulate you for this very constructive approach.
 Now, we have the document.  I think it will be made available shortly, which was prepared by the voluntary task group.  What I propose is just to go over the document.  I don't really want to have detailed discussion of the document because I think it's rather complex and it needs further consideration and probably some members of the group would like to take it back to capital and discuss it with other stakeholders or other colleagues back home.  So what I propose, once we go through the document, we try and concentrate on Group 4 and 5 questions and eventually, depending upon the discussions we are going to have, we may request the Secretariat to prepare a kind of more elaborate document, a detailed one, in the style we had for the analysis of the responses.  And probably this background document may be made available eventually for our next meeting, depending, naturally on us, when we decide to have our next meeting.  And this is also depending on where we are going to stop tomorrow at 6:00.
 So this is my proposal, and I'm just asking the Secretariat if the document is available.  So we need five minutes.  So in the meantime, I suggest to you that we start discussing Group 4.  But before we're doing that, I would like to ask you if you have any comments, remarks, observations, questions, whatever.  If not, I would like to ask you to look into the questions in Group 4.  They're all of the developing countries, and probably we may continue discussions in five minutes with that.  And we may come back to the document after the coffee break which will be, as we agreed yesterday, at 11:15.
 [ Break ]
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: You're still reading or would you like to continue?  It's up to you.  If you need some more time.  But I think we can start the discussions.  Unfortunately, it seems to me that we have some technical problems for the remote participants.  The microphone doesn't seem to be working.  So I would like to ask remote participants in case they want to contribute -- eventually -- I believe they can see the captioning.  And they can send in written form.  Okay.  So they can't hear but they can talk.  Okay.  Good.  Okay.  So we are going to discuss Group 4, issues related to developing countries.  I can see Carlos.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO: Good morning.  It's just information, and I don't know if this is already known but in the summary the responses to the questionnaire by APC are not actually theirs.  The ones that are quoted as APC, according to the APC itself, are from the Best Bits responses to the questionnaire.  This is just information.  
 The second thing that I would like to note is that most of the quotations in the summary are from developing countries and interesting that I think the emphasis should be more on the opinion of the developing countries than the developed countries themselves.  No big deal, but I think it's a bit unbalanced.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Carlos, for this contribution.  I believe we tried to make the group balanced, and probably in the room we have representatives who can contribute in this sense and I really encourage everyone to contribute in general and specifically to these questions we are discussing now.  Jimson.
 >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Distinguished Chair, Excellencies, Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, Jimson Olufuye is my name.  Good morning.  As you know, I am the chair of the Africa ICT Alliance with the alliance of ICT, private sector groups, institutions throughout Africa.  We started last year to bring together the voice of the private sector, and as of now there are about 12 African countries involved that is truly a private sector organizations, the ICT industry groups.  I myself, I used to be the president of the Information Technology Industry Association of Nigeria, up to 2011.
 While talking about developing countries, can be enhanced to effectively contribute to the discussion.  I would like to say simply that Africa in particular is very much aware of the impact of Internet to its relevance to development right now and as Democratic Republic of Congo nation in the submission that we need to be very careful with regard to the new mechanism and trying to know -- I want to be aware of the current deliverables and possibilities.
 So within that understanding, several other states in Africa came together last week with many of the ministers across Africa, we came together.  We were in Tegali with regard to transform Africa and they came out with the manifesto that talks about Smart Africa, Smart Africa manifesto.  And there's one principle in that manifesto which I found very, very interesting with regard to our government, what's the intention of our government, is that they are going to put private sector first in all their discussions.  The manifesto is available with me, I will share it if so required.  The African government felt that all stakeholders should be involved in the socioeconomic development of the continent.  The summit was shared by His Excellency, president Paul Kagame and was co-hosted by ITU, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, and as I said six other African head of states dealt with many, many stuff.  So that is the direction that everybody should be involved at all level of discussion.  And in fact, I was privileged because I'm visiting Abuja and I was preparing for this meeting that I have to come to be part of it, as I have the privilege of leading the private sector ICT group for Africa.
 So when we discuss enhanced cooperation, as we have seen in the mapping, there are a lot of dimensions.  Africa needs more engagement, (indiscernible) in the current situations, and also not to take any mood out to drop the momentum that has been contributed positively to the development we're witnessing on the African continent.  That's what I want to contribute for the start.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson.  And I think it's very important what you have said and very instructive for us.  I can see Grace.
 >> GRACE GITHAIGA:  I think this is a very important question to discuss because I was just looking at the other contributions even to the questionnaire and there was very little participation from African governments.  In fact, I don't even think there was.  And Africa, being, you know, a continent with I don't know 50 countries, it's really outstanding that they did not participate.  
 When it comes to issues of like IGF, national IGF, I know, for example, in Kenya it's been accused of just being a talk shop and not contributing practical solutions to the process.  So just thinking about the role of developing countries and how it can be made more effective, I think I would want to support what APC suggested, that we have seen developing countries be excluded at different levels.  But also self-exclude.  So, you know, addressing this problem is actually not trivial.  So the way in which Internet governance for development has been conceived and addressed in IGF and in other global spaces has not been useful.  It's been seen as narrow and top-down and often does not go beyond access issues.  So probably we need to start thinking of a distributed structure of Internet governance that is well-defined with aims and policies that may resolve this problem and make it obvious to developing countries that the process is worth our time.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace.  If I've got you right, raising issues is one of the things you think we should be doing.  It's very useful.  We are heading toward some kind of recommendation.  I think that's a better way to go ahead.  Baher, and then I see Iran. and Virat.  Yes, Baher.
 >>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Chairman.  Good morning, everyone.  I'm Baher Esmat with ICANN.  On the question of developing countries, I think the responses -- or many of the responses that came to the questionnaire illustrated, you know, some of the efforts in building capacities in developing countries, whether in the global space of Internet governance and Internet policy issues or even within the technical space.  In the past years -- and being, you know, myself I come from a developing countries -- we've seen a lot of capacity-building initiatives undertaken by Internet organizations, particularly Internet Society and the regional Internet registries in cooperation with national institutes and technical organizations, national technical organizations such as ccTLD, ccTLD managers and areas like IPv6, DNS -- DNS and DNSSEC and so forth.  So this is one area that there is, I think, clear recognition of progress made that -- and also for a need for further development and improvement and more sort of engagement in that regard.
 The other aspect is the national and regional IGFs also in the past couple of years have seen development and progress made in this area.  I've been part of one of regional IGFs, the (indiscernible) IGFs, for the past couple of years.  We've had two successful annual meetings.  We managed to -- we as community managed to attract participation from the global Internet community in the Arab region, particularly from civil society and end user community.  And I'm sure that in other parts of the world there have been success stories about national regional IGFs.  I think the good thing about the IGFs like the global IGF itself, it provided the platform for the Internet community in developing countries to engage in discussions about Internet policies.  This is something that is not often provided at national level in many -- in many countries.
 Still on capacity building and on the IGF in particular, in the last IGF meeting in Bali we've seen a special track for capacity building in that meeting.  We've also seen a daily session, orientation session for newcomers trying to explain, you know, concepts and trends in the Internet governance space, and the feedback we've heard in Bali and afterwards about this session -- about those sessions was very positive.
 One last remark on developing countries and the sort of enhanced cooperation development in developing countries, the issue of language or the multilingualization aspect of Internet governance, and I understand that there are maybe a couple of questions that deal with this, this aspect separately.  But I would like to note that one sort of remark that we often hear from participants in the Arab region is about lack of materials and lack of tools in the Arabic language, for instance, that could encourage and help more participation and get more people to participate in Internet governance fora.  This is -- this could cover a range of issues from making materials available in different languages, making tools available in different languages, and also maybe trying to develop a glossary of terms, Internet governance terms in different languages.  And one of the recent initiatives that UNESCO, together with ICANN and The Internet Society are undertaking, is to develop a glossary of Internet governance terms in Arabic language.  And the announcement of this initiative was made in Bali a couple of weeks ago, and the three organizations will start working on the project in the next couple of weeks and we hope by mid next year we'll have a draft product for discussing these terms.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Baher.  Then I think it was Iran who wants the floor first and then Virat.
 >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Good morning, everyone.  Regarding Question 10, or this group of questions, I think we need to reply to a primary question first.  If the developing countries have a role in global Internet governance and then ask how this role can be made more effective, according to what we have received from developing countries through questionnaire and what we heard in the room, many steps should be taken to consider the developing countries has a role in global Internet governance.
 I believe there is somehow a link between responses to Question 10 and 3.  We need to look at what developing countries reply to Question 3.  If their responses to Question 3 shows a good extent of enhanced cooperation has been implemented, then we can say they have a role.  But as we have seen, the response is different.  If we want to hear how this role, which has not been established to be made more effective, it can be done by implementing the Tunis Agenda.  Especially paragraph 35, 69, and 68.  Participation of developing countries in global Internet governance cannot be done only through participation in dialogues or discussions.  That's global level.  It's their sovereign rights that has to be exercised, according to paragraph 35a of Tunis Agenda.  I believe that investment, technical cooperation, education, capacity building, and so on are necessary but not the main factor in this regard, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Iran.
 Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  From the replies that have been received, it is quite clear that -- as my colleague stated some time back, that many of the replies that have been quoted are from the developing countries.  But, in fact, the substantive issues have been highlighted by those who have contributed from the developing countries.
 First, if you turn to the Tunis Agenda, Section 3 through 28 are devoted to the issue of financing.  I know comments have been made about how important financing is of infrastructure.  But if you read through the documents, sir, I would urge that nearly a third of the entire Tunis Agenda not only concentrates on the lack of financing as a major issue but, in fact, lays that as a precursor to the Internet governance issues that begin after Section 28.  In fact, it also recognizes in Section 13 that til recently and in the past, public financing was being used for building infrastructure.  But that is no longer the case and private sector investments are required.
 So I would argue, sir, and submit to you that financial investments in infrastructure in a world where merely 40% has access to online services of which Africa at 16% and Asia-Pacific at 32% of the citizens is particularly underserved is a significant and major issue as we discuss the entire proposition of enhanced cooperation.
 Thank you, an ITU report of 2013 shows that the gender distribution and access of online services is much better than it was when mobile services were penetrating the world.  In terms of online access, 37% or 1.3 billion women and 41% men or approximately 1.5 billion men have access to online services totaling to a total of 2.7 billion online people and about 40% households across the world.
 If you turn to the responses that have been given beyond the point of investment beyond the private sector and the contributions of the technical communities to reduce the cost of access by constantly innovating technologies as well as mutual discussions between carriers to reduce the cost of interconnection and international cable bandwidth, you would see that the IGF both at local and regional levels have received a thumbs-up from nearly across the board from all the communities who have responded.  Two from India, Internet Democracy Project and SFLC have been particularly clear about the need and the importance of the idea of processes and the issues that lead to free speech where developing countries are concerned.
 I would just wrap up by submitting to you in India we have, after hosting the first IGF in 2008, initiated a program to link together multistakeholder groups on a common platform in 2012.  It was an informal initiative, a first step to a formal IGF.  It was attended by nearly 400 plus stakeholders, 12 bandwidth sessions across two days, 60 speakers.  And they covered everything including access but also free speech, issues of capacity-building, net neutrality, and many others which are specific to India but have a linkage to the global five themes of the IGF.
 This year we congratulate the government of India which has called in a formal process for a national MAG that has been formulated, and we expect that that meeting will be called soon.
 We also hope that more developing countries will generate local IGFs and issues such as enhanced cooperation are those that are represented by stakeholders at global fora would be discussed nationally and that there would be sufficient opportunity for developing country citizens to participate in a forum such as this through the domestic engagement and also in the global IGFs such as the one that will occur in Istanbul next year.  
 It is not easy for everybody to travel.  Each of these cost between 3,000 to $5,000.  And so I think the emphasis that has been provided in the questionnaires and the responses of national IGFs as a formal process for not only a dialogue but also development of policy eventually is an excellent step, something that we support and hopefully will participate in actively in the future.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Virat.  Very useful thoughts and very elaborate intervention.  One remark, the IGF in Hyderabad was the third one.  Was preceded by Athens and Rio.  (saying name) was the first one, and this was a great IGF.
 Parminder.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  And good morning to everybody.
 Developing countries have a host of problems, and I would focus on the issue of the mandate of this working group which is, in my understanding, international public policy making processes and the extent or absence of developing countries in international public policy making.
 For that purpose, I would separate the technical processes -- technical policy development processes, ICANNs and regional RIRs, which have their own problems, but that's not what I think primarily we are dealing with here.
 I would also exclude the (indiscernible) dialect processes, which is the IGF, which has its own issues about developing country participation.  But that again is not the principal purpose of this working group's deliberations, and the principle purpose is international public policy making processes.
 And to understand where developing countries stand in this regard, we have to understand what are the current processes of international public policy making with respect to the Internet.  Where does the international public policy making take place?  If we understand that, we probably can comment on whether developing countries participate or whether participation has to be improved.  Again, removing the technical policy side.
 We need to focus, what is it that development of public policy making is taking place?  And it is my summation that it takes place -- (echo).
 Is it okay?  It's okay now.  Yes.
 >> (speaker off microphone).
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   So it is either made by the big countries, which is where the biggest international -- Internet business is.  Concentrated.  And by default, it then gets reflected in the global Internet business.  And that is take-it-or-leave-it policy for the whole developing world.  That's where public policy making takes place, largely in the U.S. in that case.  
 Secondly, it takes place in rich country clubs like the OECD.  OECD, as you all know, has a very strong Internet policy making organ which is called the Committee on Computers, Information and Communications Policy.  It is an emerging platform, does public policy development.
 However, I'm very surprised that when that particular Internet policy mechanism is so active and the most active of the OECD parties, the logic is used at the global level that there is not enough public policy issues to be dealt by a divergent mechanism.  That escapes my understanding.  But in any case, that's where a lot of public policy making takes place.  And as you probably all know recently, OECD developed the Principles for Internet Public Policy Making.  That is public policy by its own name.  Principles for Internet public policy were developed by an intergovernmental process through advisory structures.  The same which was India's (indiscernible) proposal which was rubbished on the global level.  Exactly the same processes developed public policy principles.  And, importantly, they did not develop it only for the OECD.
 The real intention is to see global adoption of these policy principles.  And it is almost formal that it has been sought that country to country, the goal was to say, okay, why don't you agree to these principles because these principles already exist.  
 And that's not a new model.  We all know about the Budapest cybercrime conference and the convention.  There are a lot of mechanisms which tried to pursue developing countries to sign on by saying it is a good instrument and it is already existing so why don't you just sign it.  It is a good instrument, I accept, and you can sign on it.  But the process of such kind of exclusive policy making takes place.  
 The (indiscernible) process is a similar one, which a certain number of countries decides certain principles and then we have a bigger country -- group of countries which are cooped, et cetera, et cetera.  I think we need to understand where global public policy making takes place and what is the role of developing countries.  More or less, they don't exist.  They are sold well-prepared governance and a policy framework as take it or leave it.  
 And being on the global grid of the Internet, there is not much option for countries not to accept what is increasing because most of the richest countries have the dominant model.
 I think what we need to focus on is that this is where public policy making takes place and where developing countries are with that and what is needed to be improved in that respect.
 Therefore, I would easily say if OECD's CCICP is one of the principle organs for global public policy making, it should be inclusive of all countries.  If it actually does become inclusive of all countries, that's precisely the proposal which India gave to the U.N. two years back.  There is no difference between that model and the global model which India proposed.
 So I think we need to focus on where public policy making takes place and the role of developing countries.  
 And capacity-building, yes, is very important.  But as we know in WIPO and WTO areas, capacity-building has to be seen as separate from the participation issue.  They are two different issues and should not be seen together.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Parminder.
 Sweden, then Brazil, and India.
 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chairman.  And good morning to all colleagues.  I agree with what has been mentioned before, that it's primarily a task for developing countries to define what are the main public policy issues of relevance to them and also, of course, to assess to what extent they feel that they can participate in existing global foras that deals with these issues.
 However, I just wanted to respond a little bit to what Jimson said because we certainly think that it was very encouraging to see the Smart Africa manifesto and some of the -- some of the areas that were identified there such as access, the access issue, accountability, accountability in the sense of better communication between government and citizens, better communication between government and private sector which leads to improved functioning of the society, improvement of democratic system and the enabling environment for the private sector which I think also was highlighted very much.  
 We just want to say that we see that as very encouraging and a sign of a number of developing countries playing a role and taking up a role in Internet -- related to Internet governance issues.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Sweden.
 Brazil, please.
 >>BRAZIL:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  This is an issue for Brazil that's very dear.  Usually we -- as we look into our participation in Internet governance, we used to say there are two basic parameters for our initiatives.  One of them is our full adherence to the multistakeholder model.  This is something that is very embedded in our positions and have strong reference to the model we embrace nationally.
 And the second one is the development by nation of issues that we also seek to highlight.  And we are, of course, aware that the problems around participation of developing countries in Internet governance fora are not exclusive to Internet governance.  It relates to development, the problems related to the condition of development:  Financial constraints, lack of personal capacity-building.  
 As has been stated before, each of these should be looked into its own merit and deserves specific answers and initiatives.  And it affects all stakeholders.  It affects governments.  It affects civil society.  It affects -- as we look into a room which we could adequately face multistakeholder participation, but we clearly see lack of participation from developing countries at all levels, the governance, civil society.  (indiscernible).  It is of concern to us because it has an impact even for the agenda setting of discussions.
 I will give an example.  I participated in the IGF meeting in Baku, and I thought it was productive and very important for my own understanding of the process.  This was my first IGF.  But I was a bit frustrated by a discussion we had.  There was a session that was termed "development issues," issues of concern for developing countries.
 And I was a bit surprised to realize that the most important topic on the discussion was how to expand in the developing world the new generic top-level domains.  That was the issue.  What can be done?  Why did not developing countries adhere en masse to this initiative that is so good, so -- that was devised to address developing countries?  Why did it not happen?  What can be done to address this?
 Of course, even some developing countries members took -- had an apologetic tone and said in our case, maybe there was not much awareness about this, what can we do.  We need to develop business.
 And I took the floor and I said, I feel a bit frustrated because I thought we would be discussing issues that are on the agenda for developing countries that are not only in this forum, like access, finance, capacity-building.  And all of these were not in the discussion.  And I tried to provoke a discussion on that.  There was no discussion on that.  And people started -- again, were:  What can we do to foster gTLDs in developing countries?  So I think even for the point of your agenda setting, it is important to have developing countries' participation in order to impact on the agenda.
 And then it brings me to think how can we reconcile these constraints for participation and that leads sometimes to a call for -- to have a single fora to deal with all the issues since there is difficulty to participate in a multitude of Internet governance-related fora.  
 So maybe an easy way is to let's make one single place where we can discuss one thing and make decisions for. I don't think that would work to that extent because we, of course, want to make sure we keep in mind a distributed structure of Internet governance that is something that could not be touched and should not be touched upon.  But. 
 How can we reconcile this need for more meaningful participation, involvement with this distributed structure of Internet governance?
 For myself, I think one clear answer is to provide some ways in which information could flow more.  I think it's important to devise ways in which the lack of physical participation could be compensated by access to relevant outputs, information arising from those fora.  I think this would be one way to maybe -- a limited way to address.  But, of course, we will not be looking to all -- I seen a number of 150 processes that deal with Internet.  So maybe you do not need information on everything that's going on in all fora.  But as regards relevant things that are taking place that could impact on developing countries, I think we should devise maybe a friendly user mechanisms in which information could flow better.  I think that would be one way to assist.
 And from our perspective -- and then we refer to the proposal regarding enhanced cooperation as such, this difficulty regarding participation reinforces our understanding and our conviction that we need some platform that would enable for discussion of issues related to Internet governance in a holistic, integrated manner.  I think this would be an additional benefit besides filling a gap in the overall structure.  That would also assist developing countries, but participation enables to have a more comprehensive view of issues.  
 Even if this platform, I think how that should be devised, would it lead to decision-making or would it be of a more informative and policy discussion, this is something we should maybe evolve discussion.  But, clearly, there is a need for a place in which such a discussion could take place.
 And I would see an additional benefit regarding this as a tool to assist developing countries' participation.  And here I mentioned at all levels, not only governments but also stakeholders.  
 So I think I will stop at this.  But I think this issue is very clearly linked to the notion that we need to put in place some structure that will allow -- what issues will be dealt with by this, how this could be addressed.  I think it's something for further discussion.  But, clearly, we see a need for this as a way to assist and to foster developing countries' participation on Internet governance-related discussions.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Ambassador.  I share your impressions about the Baku meeting when we were confronted with the reality.  Reality is always difficult to face.
 After that, I think it was India who asked for the floor.  And then we have the remote participant, Joy Liddicoat.  And then Carlos and Marilyn.
 Okay.  
 So India, please.
 >>INDIA:   Thank you, Chair.  Good morning to colleagues in the room.  Today I think we are confronted with this very important dimension of our discussion.  As we see it, there are two key pillars on which we could perhaps look at coming up with some recommendations.
 The first pillar is where we are talking about countries or regions or places where there is no access to Internet.  That is one dimension of the issue, where if they're not part of this process, there's no question of their seeking any role in the governance eventually.
 On that I think we have come up with any number of subproblems within that category.  The issues, how do we improve this which is leading to a digital divide of a kind, which in 2005 and 2013/'14, I think there were regions that have been left behind.  The divide is increasing exponentially.  They lag behind in an exponential manner because the speed at which progress on Internet is making would make them deprived for eternity if we do not address that.  So that's an important dimension.  As a working group, we should look at recommendations under which I think very eminent suggestions have come earlier.  The speakers mentioned about the need for financing.  How do we touch upon the issue?  Should we make recommendations on that?  Secondly, whether capacity-building in terms of the latest technology transfers or training programs, et cetera.
 Then coming to the other side of it, wherever there is access to Internet, then the second challenge is those regions and countries respective of the origin, in this case largely we are talking about developing countries, whether they have any significant role in Internet governance-related policies at the international level.  I think there's the second challenge.
 If you are looking at the later part of it, I think we are about to discover that we are all wanting to be part of a process through a mechanism but that mechanism at the international -- or global level is not present.
 We have forums for discussion.  We have forums for dialogue.  But forums where we can actually make a contribution to the extent of being able to decide, again, is something which is lacking.  A recognition of this fact has come through in the replies that have been given as well as in our discussions.
 I think it will be very important also to touch upon this issue as we make a recommendation, at which point in time then the participation of developing countries in the Internet governance would become a subset of that particular larger recommendation we intend to make.  
 I think that's where Tunis Agenda has made the recognition that we should maximize the participation of developing countries in Internet governance.
 But if we do not even have a structure, then why talk about developing countries?  I mean, they are part of the subset of the global community.  So I think it remains in a vacuum.  If we do not create a structure or a mechanism for effective participation of -- I think it is at all levels.  I think as the Ambassador of Brazil very rightly pointed out, this gap exists at all levels, whether it is government, whether it is civil society, private sector, or academia in developing countries.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, India.
 I think now the floor is the remote participant.  That is Joy.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Thank you.  Can you hear me?  Thank you.  I wanted to -- (background noise).  (indiscernible) -- I see the participation is indiscernible.  If the secretariat could advise (indiscernible).
 Okay.  Thank you.
 I wanted to enter a question and just emphasize that while I agree capacity of developing countries necessarily (indiscernible), I think it's very important to remind ourselves in this working group that the (indiscernible) is not conflicting and that (indiscernible) does exist in developing countries and that all (indiscernible).  In other words, I think we have seen new leadership and new development from developing countries including India (indiscernible) policy issues.  And I would (indiscernible) very strongly that developing countries are part of this and somehow should be (background noise) (indiscernible).
 I was thinking of the Human Rights Council with a notion on (indiscernible) --
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Joy, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   The Human Rights Council has been (indiscernible).
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   We have technical problems.  And I think if you can write it down, your contribution, in a brief way, probably the secretariat can read it out and we can take it into consideration.  But I'm sorry, at this point in time, I think the technical problems just prevent us to follow what you're saying.  So if you could do us the favor to go to the chat box and write down what you wish to say.  Thank you.
 I think the next one was Carlos, I believe.  No, sorry, sorry, Saudi Arabia.  Sorry, sorry.  Saudi Arabia.
 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And good morning to everyone.  In regards to Question 10 about the role of developing countries and how can it be more effective in the global Internet governance, as my intervention covered well by some of the previous speakers, however, the sequence of the questions that Number 10 came after the questions that we asked how enhanced cooperation could be implemented to enable governments.  And then we said how can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities.
 And when answering this, and even looking at the report, there was many inputs that the missing of having a fora for countries and governments to sit and discuss these important issues in regards to the global Internet governance does not exist.  
 And with Saudi Arabia, when we came to this question, we already stated the need to be a fora or a platform for governments to discuss these issues.  And how can this be made more effective taking into consideration -- into consideration the establishment that this platform is through balanced equal footing participation through all countries.
 However, in regards to the international Internet public policy issues, Question 15, that are of special relevance to developing countries, I can list some which is a very important such as multilingualization.  This includes the local language content search engines and multilingual e-mail.  International Internet connectivity, this includes affordability, Internet exchange points, and differences in the cost of carrying traffic.  IPv6 transition, most developing countries have limited fixed line infrastructures, and communications is primarily through wireless technologies.  IPv6 is much better suited to mobility than IPv4.
 And as has been stated, contributions to capacity-building for Internet governance, this includes financing, training, and support.  Developing countries must be involved in the development of public policy and must be able to present their interests in the evolution of the Internet.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia.  I can see Carlos, Marilyn, and I think after this we are going to break and we come back after the coffee break.  It's 11:45, and we may continue the discussions on this issue.  Carlos, please.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO: Just basically to complement what Benedicto said besides the example of this issue of gTLDs and the (indiscernible) of discussing the developing issues, et cetera, there's another example which is the famous cybercrime convention of Budapest in which some developed countries got together, drafted a convention (indiscernible) and then came to us, developing countries, and said look, why don't you sign it?  You should sign it.  It's a great convention.  And we replied no, we didn't -- we don't sign.  Why?  Because we did not participate in the discussions.  Where are the -- where is the equal footing, you know, that we all keep raging about.  So these are examples of practices that we have to try and avoid, and really in the convention the question of subsets, developing countries being subsets, I don't think we are subsets.  We have to be equals.  And the governments of developed countries must, you know, act on an equal footing with us, if they want our participation, those initiatives and structures, et cetera.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Carlos.  Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  Before I go on to make a statement about Question 10, I want to respond to the comment about that particular workshop and a couple of other workshops that are like it.  I was, too, fairly disappointed in what I thought came across as a -- what I -- I'm from business, we call that mar com, marketing communications.  I didn't like it at all.  I didn't think it was within the spirit of what we should have been planning for a particular workshop.  And particularly not with a title that it belonged in.  However, the Baku IGF overall was filled with rich and interesting issues and workshops and we met in a country in a particularly geographic sub-space that we had never been to before in the IGF.  So I just wanted to not lose sight of the -- and to note that as the ambassador said, he was focused on a particular workshop, and I really share the concerns that he expressed.
 But I want to go on to say that I think it's actually fair to say that within the IGF we are still working hard on how to thoroughly incorporate the development discussions into the IGF, that that is very much a work in progress.  We made progress, but I want to just say I think we can do more.  And when we talk later about mechanisms, I will probably say more.
 Now I'd like to make a comment about I'm obviously not from a developing country.  I live in the United States, or on united.com.  I'm not sure which it is.  Most of you know that I travel a great deal.  I go to many, many different countries and I -- I also teach a course that is a survey course that is attended only by citizens from developing countries, that is focused on cybersecurity, the use of ICT's and disaster remediation, and Internet governance.  The course attendees range from system administrators to managers in telecom companies and IPs to regulators to boards of regulatory authorities to people who work for ministries.  And in the survey course what I talk about is the Internet governance ecosystem.  And I talk about how to get involved in the GAC and how to get involved in the IGF and how to learn about whether there is a national or regional IGF in your country or region and if you're not engaged already, who to reach out to to become involved.  I have never had any of the students, the attendees -- there are usually about 22 to 24 -- I have never had a single one of them say I don't want to go to an ICANN meeting.  I don't want to go to a national IGF.  Instead, they say how can I get involved?  How do I find the resources?  How do I get my management, whether it's private sector or government, how do I get them to understand the importance of Internet governance and why it's important to decisions we're making about our country.
 So now I'm going to use an analogy.  In the days of the narrow band Internet when we coined the words "E-commerce" that was only talked about in very specialized places.  Today much of commerce is online in one way or another.  We talk about the implications of the online world and about doing business online in a widely distributed number of places.  I think for myself that what we need to focus on is strengthening and deepening the awareness about what Internet governance policies are and how you need to participate, both at a national level and to strengthen -- now, some in the room may still at the end of the day think that there is a need for a separate and new.  But I hope we don't lose sight of the importance of definitely strengthening and deepening the mechanisms we have now.  I'm going to go back to a comment made by Barat (saying name).  We need to find more mechanisms to provide initial funding to bring participants from all stakeholder groups, including business from developing countries, into these mechanisms.  We can't stop by saying there is no money.  My experience is once an NGO or civil society or business or government comes to a couple of meetings, they become much better able to justify the participation and to articulate the value to their management stream.  And after a couple of meetings, they're able to then become an ongoing participant and they're also much more able to use online participation when they have a network of colleagues to relate to.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn.  I promised you that we are going to have coffee break, but I also promised yesterday that we are going to have a segment for observers.  Now it is your time.  So if you have some comments to give, please do.
 >>MATTHEW SHEARS: Thank you, Chair.  And good morning.  Matthew Shears with CTD.  Just two very quick points.  With regards to the comments that are in the summary document and the comments that have been inputted by participants to this process, speaking as a representative of civil society, there are a significant number and a great diversity of views coming from civil society that have been inputted into this process.  Many of those organizations that have submitted comments are from developing countries, or represent developing country interests.  And I would like to suggest that many of those views do not recommend, do not suggest that moving to a global mechanism is necessarily the way that is going to particularly solve the issues that developing countries have in dealing with public policy and public policy issues at the international level.  So I think it's -- it's a leap, if you will, certainly from civil society inputs to go from a concern about developing country interests at international level to a global mechanism.  And I would recommend that people look again at some of those inputs.
 I'd like to also very firmly agree with the Brazilian ambassador.  This is very much an issue of information sharing.  I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to agree with a need for a platform, but certainly there are information sharing platforms that are under development and one is the European Union's new platform that they are establishing for global Internet policy observatory which I suggest the -- the aim of that is very much what we've been talking about, the need to provide information -- on organizations to provide policy information and to share information globally.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  India, I can see you want to take the floor.  Let me ask for your indulgence and let's come back and I'll give the floor -- you will be the first after coffee break.  So we are going to have a coffee break, up to 50, 10 to 12:00 and come back.
 [ Break ]
 [ Gavel ]
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Welcome back.  You have copies here on the table.
 Another thing, we had Joy -- Joy to intervene and we had technical problems.  So I'm told by the Secretariat --
 [ Gavel ]
 Can I have your attention, please?  Thank you.  I'm told that the technical problems have been resolved for the remote participation so I suggest you listen to Joy Liddicoat.  Joy, the floor is yours.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Can you hear me?
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: We can hear you.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you.  I wanted to make a point in relation to the last discussion.
 In particular to emphasize that while it's important to acknowledge the concerns about capacity building for developing countries, and certainly on the (indiscernible).  I think it's also very important that this working group acknowledges that developing countries do have many capacities so leadership and a variety of (indiscernible) that are critically needed, not only in relation to the Internet governance fora itself but also in other areas such as in the Human Rights Council, (indiscernible) and leading discussion of the relation of the same human rights as offline as online and I would be very consumed if there was any suggestion in the summary from this meeting which inquired that also civil society from developing countries are of the view that new mechanisms are needed to deal with the variety of -- some variety of issues on the discussion.  Often civil society in developing countries provides barriers to existing mechanisms and assume a new mechanism would pose more difficulties.  So I think I want to emphasize that point and think more discussion about the particular issues which I believe the changing needs and the mechanism exercise is specific issues which are not adequately covered by existing mechanisms and to understand those issues.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy.  Before the coffee break I promised India, and I always keep my promises.  India, please.
 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  Quickly just a small clarification.  I think Carlos had referred to subset and the context in which I was mentioning was that the global Internet public policy issues which we will discuss, those are relevant to the developing countries with a subset of that and not the countries a subset of anyone else.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think the point is well-taken.  Grace, you wanted to take the floor?  Okay, please go ahead.
 >>GRACE GITHAIGA: Thank you, Chair.  In the morning during my contribution I did point out that one way of dealing with this issue of making countries participate in Internet governance would be to have a distributed structure of Internet governance that is well-defined within said processes and then, you know, in a way it will make developing countries know which processes are worth their time.  I want to note a number of questionnaire responses emphasized a value of a distributed approach to policy-making.  And I think this is very consistent with the assumption that different policy issues may imply different mechanisms and that actors who should be involved -- and which actors should be involved in related policy divisions.  So my suggestion is before we start thinking of establishing a new platform, as has been suggested, I think we need to map what the issues are, whether they're being addressed now, whether this is adequate, and whether we need new mechanisms to address them.  And I think this is an exercise we started yesterday by compiling a list of issues mentioned in response to Question 4 and my suggestion is that we continue with this process.
 And lastly, it would be important for us not to forget that the IGF has been central platform to addressing Internet-related public policy issues, which is truly inclusive in multistakeholder.  So before we start building new structures, new mechanisms, perhaps it is time we thought of improving of how -- or how we can strengthen the IGF and what would be needed to implement this improvement as recommended by the previous CSTD working group.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace.  It is my understanding that the IGF has made a great progress in this aspect and it's trying to implement the recommendations of the previous working group.  Just let me remind you of one of the main recommendations, that is IGF should discuss policy issues in its program and that's actually what has happened during the Bali meeting.  There were policy questions which were discussed, and I think the output will be made available to all those who are interested and naturally, including governments, all stakeholders will benefit from this.
 I can see Japan, Brazil, Ellen, Virat.  So Japan, please.
 >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  As other colleagues pointed out in the morning session, in order to increase the participation of developing countries in the global Internet governance, I think it is very effective to consider under implemented the measures to enable the developing countries to attend the existing international fora dealing with the Internet-related public policy issues such as IGF and to utilize (indiscernible) fora effectively, sufficiently.  For example, raising awareness, information sharing, and enhancing remote participation.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan.  Talking about remote participation, we have one request but I'm not sure if Avri is -- would like to take the floor.  Avri.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Can I be heard?  Yes.  I hadn't actually requested the floor, but since I had got it, I had sent a note and basically at that time I was very much (indiscernible) with what Matthew Shears had said and wanted to indicate that civil society from developing regions has its own voice and that voice is conflicted with the new favor of multistakeholder mechanisms, the multistakeholder mechanisms that are existing with perhaps a single or a few other exceptions.  And until such time as we concentrate on remote participation that meets current standards, it will be really difficult for these existing mechanisms to reach their full fruition and for people to actually participate in those venues.  The technology does exist for supported, very full remote participation, but we need the (indiscernible) and perhaps the financing to make sure that those things exist.
 The idea that -- of creation of new structures would help.  It's really difficult to understand, as those who present us with new opportunities, for difficulties in participation.  We really need to focus on the (indiscernible) we have, especially the IGF, and strengthen them as opposed to dissipating our energy, which is small, in new directions.  So I'm really entreating us to really focus on strengthening what we have and truly focusing on making sure that remote participation is really a method of participation for people from developing regions of all sorts.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri.  I think your intervention was a good example that remote participation is working indeed.  I can see Brazil and then I -- Ellen, you wanted to take the floor, Virat, and Jimson.
 >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I took the floor to complement what was pointed out by Carlos Afonso in which the Budapest convention also provided an example of the need to involve developing countries' participation from the start.  He mentioned an important point for us, principle that we follow that usually we do not adhere to an instrument in which we did not participate.  But this is not an absolute in itself.  Otherwise, we would not adhere to any organization and be global -- regional in which we were not in the initial group.  So this is something that we could be flexible about it.  But there is a practical reason why we want to be involved in -- especially in global negotiations, because others make sure that the outcomes will be in line also and will be acceptable for us according to our constitutional legal requirements and this is not the case at this convention.  As it is now, it would require from us and others to change national legislation.  Which is something we might do in case there is national consensus for that, but this is to indicate the need to fully involve in global negotiations some aspects because otherwise we might be found in a position in which we (indiscernible) at the Budapest convention.  We see a lot of (indiscernible) in its purpose in the instruments that we are -- it is difficult for us from the point of view that this would entail internal changes that we are not prepared for the moment to make.  And this leads me to indicate and to reinforce the need for developing countries' participation at large, to make sure that the -- and I repeat, the agenda (indiscernible) from the beginning will address also developing countries' concern.  And if we think that one of our overall objectives regarding this review, 10-year review, we think largely in terms of outcomes, is that we want to make some substantial input for the millennium development goals follow-up.  So I think we should give very serious consideration to mechanisms and ways we can collectively devise to enhance participation because otherwise the input that will come maybe will not correctly address developing countries' participation.  And this is one point.  And I'm also prompted by the comments that was made by Ms. Grace, I'd say we fully concur with this vision.  I'd just like to read out one part, small part of our contribution in which we say, "The discussion of any new suitable framework or mechanisms must be preceded by the assessment of those current arrangements."  So that is why we think the mapping is a very -- is a prerequisite to discussion.  We need to know what is there, what is on the table, so we can provide for some intervention on what exists and if there are any -- and the second part says, "The discussion of any suitable framework or mechanisms should be guided by the purpose of addressing perceived needs or filling gaps." And to that end, Brazil proposes first to deepen discussion on what we want before discussing how to achieve what we want.  
 So we -- we really think we need some good information.  I think this -- we thank the group that prepared this initial work on the mapping.  I think maybe we'll adjust this later on, Mr. Chair, but I think this is a good way forward in providing us with more good information which we can build upon.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil.  India, this is my intention, that we shall briefly discuss the paper because of the indications of this paper are much greater than to be discussed in a very short time.  But before doing that, probably we proceed with the discussion we are having right now.  So it is Ellen who asked for the floor followed by Virat and then Jimson and Marilyn.  Ellen, please.
 >>ELLEN BLACKLER: Thank you.  This is Ellen Blackler.  I'm one of the business representatives from The Walt Disney Company.  I wanted to add something to the discussion so that we continue to be aware of the less formal ways that the community moves to address issues of concern raised by developing countries.  Over the past year or two for the discussion at the IGF and other forums, as well as empirical research documenting the availability of content to driving adoption, we and others have put a focus on how to create an environment that encourages locally-relevant content creation.  By way of example, at the IGF for the first time there was several sessions on encouraging locally-relevant content that were well attended by participants from developing countries.  I attended two sessions, one organized by Google and one organized by Disney and UNESCO, that shared specific best practices in areas that are necessary to develop a robust content creation environment.  The panels addressed a range of issues from developing local hosting capabilities to creating sustainable business models for content creators and other efforts such as the partnership we've developed with the Bandung University in Indonesia to encourage an app development industry by creating a prize contest for a locally-developed app.  Attendees at these sessions were engaged and I hope came away with some helpful ideas and information.  All of that is an -- activity is an organic response to this concern that we've heard about the need for local content development.  And I'd like us to keep in mind the important role of that kind of activity when we talk about ways to address these issues.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ellen. Virat, you asked for the floor.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to endorse the point made very strongly by the honorable delegate from Brazil about the fact that we need to carefully evaluate first the issues at hand and find out whether there is an existing mechanism to resolve those issues and whether there is an existing home for those.  The working group has prepared the list that was circulated earlier and has about 465 word issues listed in what is lovingly called the laundry list.  But I can assure you that after we've taken away the duplicates you will still have about 100-plus issues left there.  This is based on the estimates that we did yesterday.  
 It is also important to note that apart from existing homes that might be available by way of existing mechanisms, a large number of these issues are purely domestic, for national governments to resolve.  For example, a deep discussion on access and how important that is and whether there is a role for global governments and global stakeholders or whether that's mostly a national issue will have to take place before we discuss the final set of outcomes and mechanisms that are available or need to be made available.  So I suppose the task would include both evaluation of this list of issues, whether existing mechanisms and a division between national and global issues.  And after that exercise has been completed, we can proceed to have discussions on the options.
 The last pass that I wish to submit, Mr. Chairman, is about the IGFs and the fact that the speaker on the -- on the remote participation spoke about technology, and we strongly endorse the fact that this is a group dealing with technology and Internet.  We must find ways to ensure a higher level of participation, especially from the developing world in global events using technology because currently it would seem that the use of technology is a fraction of what is possible, if everybody put their minds to it.  So whether it's a matter of cost or technology, I think that is an important area of focus.  We should note, however, that to ensure participation from the developing worlds the IGFs have been held, including the next two, in the developing world so that cost of stay, travel, et cetera, are lesser than they would be if it was in a capital city of a developed country.  So there are some efforts underway.  More have to be made.  But before we discuss the issue of mechanisms it would be important to allocate them into existing homes and domestic forces global.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  Jimson, please.
 >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you.  Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair, Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen.  Well, I just also want to underscore this viewpoint who have been expressed before but to relate it to my own direct experience.  First, as far as remote participation, it cannot be overemphasized, the need for us to get it right at every meeting.  I recall the last IGF in Bali, well-organized and also I appreciate Chengetai and Steve and the government of Bali.  I could not travel, but Baku and Abuja I could still contribute in my sessions, in the workshops.  Though I have to wake up 1:30 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. in Abuja to be connected, but, you know, I was so happy.  You know, with the webcast I saw everybody clearly.  They could hear me.  There is some little glitches here and there, but I could send my contribution and it was so beautiful.  So we need to strengthen that.  It's so important.  And I will give that channel for developing nations, countries, for their voices to be heard.  And really even in Africa, in our own organization, you know, that spans 12 countries in Africa, we meet every month and we use remote communication to move -- to move on, to communicate.
 I also want to recognize or say that really we have some group of people calls SMEs, small and medium enterprises, that generally need to be heard.  There's no doubt, to be there physically is better than remote because now you can hear me clearly in this hall than breaking.  
 So small businesses have challenges in terms of funding.  It's not cheap.  Virat said it.  Many of us agree, it's not cheap.  Must have a way or mechanism to enabling this sector of the voices to be heard.  Many are willing to be around now, representatives but are not able to.  For example, I have to sponsor myself to be here, and it's expensive.  So we need to look at, you know, business financing for that.  Then more investment in awareness, synergy, and collaboration.  For collaboration is so important.  Among all stakeholders for different organizations, countries, collaborating together.  Even within the countries, collaborating together, creating more awareness so that we can have a grasp of what we have attained already, and that will help a great deal.  So that just briefly what I want to add to the discussion on the ground.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Jimson.  Yes, I can confirm that remote participation has challenges and has costs.  But this is probably the way forward to get more people on board.  And I was really happy to be with you on the same panel, your being I don't know how many thousands of kilometers away.
 Parminder.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Yeah, so I was trying to pass on to the mic to any potential speaker because my issue is a little different from the one under discussion.  It came to mind because Virat was talking already about already dealing with the questions kind of thing.  Since I have the mic, I will make my point.
 I think as we have this long list of issues, when we go through, it gives you a good mental map of what kind of things need to be dealt with.
 I remind that I and Marilyn were agreeing on some categories of issues which was like already being dealt somewhere.  Second was being dealt with but not in a holistic matter in the sense of connecting with other Internet issues.  And third was largely not being dealt with anywhere.  And the fourth one which Marilyn added which is more of a trend, which is something in the future, and probably policy work is a great focus in that kind of thing.
 So once you start kind of bunching --
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Parminder, excuse me.  We haven't closed the discussion on Group 4.  We come back discussing the paper.  I'm very sorry about that.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Yeah.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   So if anyone would like to contribute to the questions in Group 4, then this is the time to do it.  We have had very, very intensive discussion on that, very interesting one, and very constructive one with a lot of proposals, a lot of interesting ideas.  And we have to continue to think about these proposals and how to synthesize them into a set of recommendations.
 So I'm really happy that this discussion has taken place from so diverse aspects and so diverse points of views.
 If you still want to contribute to that one, this is the time to do it.
 If not, then we can go to the discussion -- a short discussion of the document which I think will take us to the lunch break.  And in the afternoon, after lunch break, I would like to continue with the questions in Group 5.  Hopefully, we can finish with Group 5 during this afternoon.  And as you know me, I'm always optimistic.  But eventually tomorrow, we can start drafting some recommendations.  And it seems to me that the best candidates for the recommendations are the questions we have discussed now.
 So even though there was a big discussion, I could feel a lot of convergence of ideas and a lot of convergences of recommendations.
 So, Marilyn, if you would like to comment on Group 4 -- No.  So anyone on Group 4, questions, development issues?
 In that case, let me ask the members or one of the representatives of the voluntary task force to introduce this paper for the group.
 Any volunteer?  Thank you, Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Well, I'm going to open my introduction by asking two people to please stand up, Lea and Sam.  Please stand up.  That's why you have this document.  So can we start with a round of applause.
 [ Applause ]
 Now I'm going to try to explain it.
 When we spoke yesterday, we were taking Question 4 and doing a mapping exercise.  And we had a number of categories that we proposed.  So I agree with Virat.  We have down the left-hand column the laundry list.  Let me tell you where we got the laundry list.
 The team went into the submissions and pulled out every bullet and plugged them into this list.  So there's a terrific amount of duplication, and we are going to talk about how to synthesize the duplication.
 But we felt it was important that you have a sense of the depth of the contributions in a single document.  We added a column that's now called "draft categories, work in progress."  And this is an effort to use your expertise and contribution to come up with a more homogenized list to go down from 400 and some duplicative into X number that are categories that everyone feels comfortable with.
 So the labels need to be descriptive enough that the submitters agree with them and that all of us understand what they mean.  I'm going to give you an example.
 What you have in the draft categories is our effort to come up with labels or terms.  Those aren't cast in concrete.  The next category is called "consolidated groupings."  That's where we want to plug in the actual headings or issues that the room agrees with.
 So let me pick an example.  We -- if you look at Number 7, it's called "IPR."  We would -- and it appears in several places.  We would assume that IPR, or intellectual property rights may be spelled out, would be a common term that if everyone agreed every time we see IPR, we would put the discussion about that topic and we would accept IPR under "consolidated grouping."
 If you look at Number 1, the administrative of root zone files and system, we call that "critical Internet resources."  The room might not think that that's granular enough.  So you might decide you want to call it something else.  All we're trying to do is give you a framework to build on.
 I will just say a very interesting thing, if you look -- if you glance at this, you can begin to see -- And we started out, Ambassador, we started out with the list from Brazil because it was in the document and then we added on from there.
 But if you go over to -- I'm just going to point to 117, 118, 121, 122, 133, 134, you're beginning to see as you keep going through the bullets the same phrases being repeated.  So, obviously, our next step -- we did about a hundred.  Our next step is to get rid of all the duplication and come up with the consolidated grouping list using terms everybody agrees with.
 The next step we talked about doing was to identify the current activities and approaches that are underway and then to Parminder's point, then have a conversation about I'm calling it the "how satisfied are we."  And I think Parminder -- Parminder, these four categories, that's right now under a heading called "status" because we didn't really know what to call it.
 So you've got a document that we really need everyone to look at and to think about are you happy with the draft category labels that we provided to you to think about.  Do you want to change some of them?  And how do we do this quickly so that we can actually go ahead with the next step?
 But I don't think this small team is volunteering to do all of the work without more help.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Marilyn.  I would like also to thank all those who participated in establishing this list.  And frankly speaking, the list is frightening.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>MARILYN CADE:   I'm sorry, Chairman.  I thought you meant exciting.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.  It's really exciting and probably we have to calm down.  And we need some time to think about.  I don't assume that the horrendous task of merging and eliminating duplications is within our capacity right now.  But we are probably -- it gives us a lot of thought for -- to think about in the upcoming days.
 I reiterate what I said in the morning, that this is a very good beginning to take stock what we have and what we called the mapping exercise.  So probably this is a very good first step.  
 But I would suggest that we might think about going further.  As I said in the morning, I would like to ask the secretariat to provide this in one of the future meetings we have with some background document in this respect about the existing mechanisms and existing examples of enhanced cooperation.
 So I believe it will be extremely useful for this group.  And it doesn't mean that we don't have to work on this document ourselves but probably not right now.  You may take your time probably.  You may like to consult with your colleagues back home as well.  So it's really up to you.  It is really your decision what we're going to do with this document.
 So any comment regarding the document itself?
 Parminder, please.  And then Chris.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  I'll continue with the comments which I was making earlier.
 So I think we have a nice list here, and I agree with the categories as they are, including up to the status which is where we would be able to say whether we think they are being dealt with, they are being dealt with but not in a holistic manner, they have largely not been dealt with, and they are future trends which require a lot of policy work because the idea is that this is what -- and I agree with both the phrases, frightening and exciting but definitely enormous set of things which are needed to be done and which is the mandate of this group to figure out -- not to do it but to figure out the mechanism of what could start to do something about it, the mechanism and not addressing these issues.
 Therefore, from these issues we have to go towards mechanisms, which is our mandate.  And I think the translation starts from the status which is the four categories we mentioned, and then also the categories which I tried yesterday which is the technical policies, oversight and public policies.  Like, the one, administration of root zone file and system, it is either one or two in that case.  And as Ambassador from Brazil said, these three categorizations already exist in the relevant sections of Tunis Agenda.  They have very clearly said day-to-day operation is one side, principles related to CIRs is another thing, which is oversight, I understand, and other public policy issues is three.  So they have that.  
 So after the status, if we do that, we can then start entering what needs to be done under each category.  And that's where our recommendations of whether we are satisfied, we think, you know, it should be done in a distributed manner, we need a new body, et cetera, comments can start coming.  Last one even, role of stakeholders.
 I think from issues, therefore, the conversion into the real elements of our mandate would that way be possible.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Parminder.  
 Chris Disspain.
 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Thank you.  So thanks for asking about what we should do with this document.  And I'd hate to see all this hard work go to waste.  I think we should decide to move on, the way forward with this.  And maybe the way forward is for a small group, sub working group if you'd like, to take this and move it down the line over the next few weeks.
 I wanted to support Virat's very clear point about a number of these issues are not actually global issues; they're national issues.  So as part of the process of going -- I think the next step is to go through and look at duplicates.  I think that's really important because obviously there is a heap of those.  
 And then I think the next step after that is to say:  Is it actually an issue relevant to this working group?  Because if it's not an international global issue or for that matter an Internet governance issue, then it can go into a separate category.
 And then I think we can start to look at rating them and doing what Parminder was talking about.
 But I'd like to suggest that we do agree to have a small working group take charge of this document.  I appreciate that the two or three people that have done this work so far can't do it on their own and we continue to work on the document.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Chris.  As far as eliminating duplicates, I think this is doable and it is relatively simple.  As far as evaluating the relevance of some questions, I have my doubts that in a small group we can do that.  Probably as the issues which have been raised came from contributions asked by the working group itself in the questionnaire.  So probably those who contributed have thought about the relevance of the issues.  So I don't believe that a small group may like to judge whether this is relevant or not.
 So probably we have to be very cautious about that.  I have nothing against, however, setting up such a small working body -- shall we call it a working party, using the ITU terminology -- to do a kind of reduction of the number of issues we have, retaining everything -- I'm just talking about the duplications.
 I can see Virat asking for the floor.  Sorry, sorry.  India, you asked for the floor?  Oh, Brazil.  Oh, my goodness.  We are approaching lunch break.  I'm sorry.
 >>BRAZIL:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I think I have some comments that were already covered by others.  But one thing that occurs to me that has just been said, Mr. Chair, that it is doable towards having a more workable document, to eliminate duplication.  I think that might be something more easily done.  Just by looking at the pages, I identified eight references to multilingualism, either with a single word or multilingualism including internationalized domain names.  So maybe we can retain both.  But at least if we eliminate six, I think this would be the case in regard to other issues.  So we may come up with a document with over 100 may be but more workable.
 And in regard to the small working group that would be tasked to further elaborate on this, I think that's probably the most efficient way to go about it.  But I would also think that we would need this group to be open to contributions because since we are dealing with a universe of issues, I think expertise and inputs would be needed from various parties that would not necessarily be in this working group.
 And the most -- of course, the most burdensome issue would be to fill in current activities and approaches.  I think the real challenge would be in regard to this column to identify exactly what are the current arrangements or what is being done in that regard.  And we don't need to identify what interventions we might propose or agree to recommend or at least to identify.
 So I think this -- I don't have any idea of the amount of work, but I think it might require some extension of time that I think if we can aim at having this by our next meeting, that would be, I think, maybe a big challenge enough for the working group to work around this.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Brazil.  Probably you don't need my advice of how to eliminate duplicates.  Probably a simple sort on the Column 2 of this issue list will do and it will help.  And then we can proceed on that.
 So I can sense that to establish a small working party may be agreed upon by this group.  So probably you would like to think about how you would like to establish this working party which will be naturally open to anyone who'd like to participate from this group.
 India, please.
 >>INDIA:   Thank you, Chair.  Quickly, first of all, we wish to place on record our sincere appreciation to our colleagues led by Marilyn for coming up with this list which, I guess, is largely based on the contributions that we have.  I think it is a very good basis to start with, though there are duplications, and I'm sure there are a few things which we need to look at.
 At the same time, the recognition that we could have at this point in time is if there are more additions to be made by any of the members of the working group, you could, perhaps, set a particular time frame during the course of the day by which time then there is a more acceptable list of issues.  I'm not saying everyone agrees to what's in here but at least if there are any new areas, which the small group or the larger group would look at it subsequently.
 And, again, with the clear provision that you could at any time if any member wants to add a new issue to be added, the flexibility exists.  With that understanding starting to begin with, we have the issues settled to begin with.
 And the second step would be, I think, on the lines of categorization of these issues.  The two approaches I think as we heard, one approach could be on the lines which we already have -- where we have mentioned in our contribution that the last working group on Internet governance did classify them into four categories.
 Perhaps if that is one basis or possibility, yeah, if you want to add one more -- there are four listed here.  One can be there.
 And, thereafter, the other suggestion was to look at just what Parminder has summarized based on what earlier I think were his discussions with Marilyn.  So perhaps that initial kind of determination could be made in the larger group on categorization.
 And then the smaller group would be tasked with the responsibility to place them in different groups and then thereafter come in the larger group to see the next steps.  I think that could be perhaps a logical way to go about as we see it.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, India.  I think this is a good way of moving forward.  I think the voluntary task force was looking at the contributions, took the input from the contributions but nothing prevents us to give additional items.  However, I caution ourselves as far as the extent of expanding.
 We have constraints, meaning that we have to come up with recommendations according to a mandate for the next session of the CSTD which would be May.  That is, we have to finish our work by end of February, beginning of March.
 We have to be aware, also, we shall do our best but it is not going to perfect.  We have to make some compromises.
 So there's always room for improvement, I understand.  There's always a possibility of taking up new things, but I caution you to be very, very careful how we are going to proceed.
 As for the categories you suggested, I think this is a good way forward.  It is the bigger group, that is the whole working group, which may establish the categories.  And probably the working party we are going to create can work on the basis of that; that is, eliminating duplication and putting the issues into the categories or putting categories to the issues, whatever way you would like to put it.
 Any other intervention?  Virat?
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  So just trying to consolidate some of the points and clarifying them.  So the step one, I suppose, we're moving towards clearing the duplicates because we've got to come down from this list of 460.
 Step two, I think a determination would have to be made about whether the issues that have been mentioned here fall under the overall ambit of Internet governance and lend themselves to the dialogue on enhanced cooperation.  That's a key threshold through which the issues must enter the door for consideration for this group and its mandate.
 The third would be whether these are national governments and domestic issues or whether they lend themselves to a global dialogue and a global discussion or policy making as some of my colleagues have called it.
 The fourth step would be to classify them as -- I think the Indian delegate mentioned about the working group on IGF improvements.  But I suppose it's WGIG that he might be mentioning.  The four classifications are in the WGIG document.  I suppose it is that document, unless I'm wrong.
 Then there is the WGIG document versus the formula that has just been sort of offered by Parminder here.
 And the last would then be to sort of qualify it as whether there is an existing home, whether the existing home or mechanism is doing sufficient work, and whether there is nothing currently available and, therefore, something needs to be found on a way to handle it.  It could be about five steps.
 I would say one -- I would just make one submission that whatever the smaller group does should be submitted on a no-judgment basis as a preliminary report to the entire group so that they're able to requalify an issue if they believe that needs to be mentioned separately and doesn't fall under the duplication because the smaller group, as you have mentioned, may not be sort of entirely authorized to strike off an issue as already exists.  So I think we should provide that, maybe a week or a ten-day opportunity, to everybody to look at that list in case they absolutely insist that their issue has not been included.  And that would be immediately after step one, which is when we clear out duplicates.  
 So I submit a five-stage process could be followed and the Brazilian Ambassador's point that we should have this by the next meeting so we could have a sensible sort of time period in which we can conclude this exercise.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I think we are getting there.  If there's no one from the group who'd like to take the floor, I would call on the observer.
 >>LEA KASPAR:   Thank you, Chair.  Lea Kaspar for Global Partners.  
 I was one of the people working on the document.  And I just wanted to say that perhaps it might be helpful to note that if the group would find this useful, we can just delete the duplicates today and have that ready by tomorrow so we can just go on to the second step as was noted now.  So just I want to offer my time to do that if the group would find it useful.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Definitely I find it useful if you deleted the duplicates.  As for the continuation of the work, I would like to think about how we are going to proceed.  It's very tempting to work on this document.  However, we shouldn't lose sight of our main task.  So what I suggest now to have our lunch break and let's discuss it after lunch, consider what we are going to do and how we are going to do.
 Before breaking for lunch, Joy wanted to take the floor.  Joy?
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I apologize for keeping people from their well-deserved lunch break.  Just one suggestion to assist the smaller working group.  I notice that a number of people offered to assist in preparing the document, and there are one or two people who are indicating they might like to also contribute to this task.  And I am just wanting to make sure that would be possible, for example, Anja Kovacs from (indiscernible) Project, who wishes to assist.  And if there are any others, I think that would be a useful contribution.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Joy.  I'm going to consider it.  Thank you.
 And now I think we are going to break for lunch and we come back at 3:00.  Thank you.
 [ Lunch break ]
 [ Gavel ]
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good afternoon, welcome back.  You look fresh.  You had a nice lunch and the weather is beautiful outside.  I imagine you would have liked to walk down to the lake.  Can I ask you to take your seats, please?  Shall I sing something?
 [ Speaking non-English language ]
 [ Laughter ]
 Okay, I would like to start now.  I would like to the Swiss delegation to take their seat.  Thank you.  
 Okay.  So before lunch break there were a lot of things going on.  First of all, we discussed the questions in Group 4.  We had a very, very good discussion on that.  I'm really happy to have all of these ideas confronted.  And we had the short presentation of a very good paper containing a few issues, if I'm not mistaken there are over 480 issues.  And we agreed that there would be additional work done on this paper and eliminate duplicates.  I was promised to have this paper by tomorrow and eventually tomorrow morning we may start some kind of relatively short discussion on this paper.  
 What I suggest now to do is to attack the questions in Group 5.  And I hope to finish it by 6:00.  Leisurely we're going to take a coffee break at around half past 5:00.  There's one thing I want to ask you if you have any comments on the discussions we had this morning or any observation concerning the way we are proceeding.  If there are no comments, I would like to add once again that my target is to  start drafting some recommendations tomorrow.  There are a lot of issues which I -- I think that we may agree on, there would be a consensus, or close to consensus, and I want to repeat that this is a drafting exercise.  It is not a final recommendation.  We are just drafting something we can build on for the next meeting.  But I find it extremely important that the -- at the end of this meeting we already have some things to build on for the next meeting, which I still don't know and it very much depends on you, how you feel it.  It may be one or two meetings next year.  I'm inclined to think that we may need to have two meetings, but it's up to you to decide.
 Okay.  So I suggest to go into the Group 5 and look through the questions pertaining to this group.  I -- as usual, I'll give you about five minutes to go through and to concentrate and I'm expecting your comments after that.
 [ Break ]
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay.  So I think you had some time to review the questions in the Group 5 which is about barriers for participation and enhanced cooperation which is very close to what's been discussed previously.  So I invite you to give your comments.  So who would like to take the floor first?  Yes, Grace.
 >>GRACE GITHAIGA: I would like to just articulate some of the points that APC had raised but then, you know, they say they are the reflections of -- the comments are not reflected.  And I just want to say some of them that in the barriers they highlight the absence of common principles for Internet governance at substantive and procedural levels.  There's also not even a common understanding what the Internet is from an economic or legal perspective.
 The second barrier is the geopolitical arrangements among states, and interventions by states and global policy processes appear to be aimed at protecting the specific business or political interests rather than reflect a broader mandate from all their citizens.  There's also an equal distribution of power among governments in global Internet governance basis.  Some are simply more powerful than others.  And often positions are shaped by this powerful configurations rather than by a desire to achieve the best possible public interest outcomes.  There's also limited financial resources, time, capacity, and knowledge operate as barriers for the participation of the Internet governance ecosystem by civil society, by small- and medium-sized business, and governments from developing countries.  And then, of course, there's also the barrier of diversity, different political and cultural backgrounds and traditions, different understandings about the role of governments and different approaches by governments to inclusive policy processes.
 In terms of actions required, one of the main things is that there needs to be more work with marginalized communities for us to develop local content in all languages that meets the needs and tells the stories of these marginalized communities.
 In terms of how EC can address issues to a broader socioeconomic development, one of the key factors is that it should ensure that stakeholders from all sectors reach agreement on a common vision and go through ICT support and socioeconomic development and by respecting that they can contribute to meeting these goals.  It is also important to manage conflicts of interests and put human rights and public interests first.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace.  Any other comments?  Parminder.
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Just on the (indiscernible) of the group, since nobody else is commenting, I will talk to keep the discussion rolling.  Two small points.  One is that it was pointed out earlier, I think by the Indian delegation, that though we are talking about participation discretion is linked to the question of mechanisms because many of us think the basic barrier is a fact that there is no peer mechanism on which policymaking development takes place and that itself is a barrier.  And if we have a mechanism, then you will have different kind of barriers.  But a big barrier right now is an absence of a mechanism.
 Second, because there are a couple of issues, a couple of questions under this set like the affordability question.  In an effort to what a lot of you have said, that one of the (indiscernible) which should be applied to the issues is whether their relevant to our mandate, which is international public policymaking, and whether they are national level issues.  
 So I would think that in our discussion we should focus on the international public policy aspects.  I do think even access and local content may have an international aspect, but we as a mandate of the group are discussing international public policy issues and that (indiscernible) should be applied when we get into these questions to make the most productive use of our time.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder.  I think I just want to comment on your last point, which I think is a valid point.  We have formulated questions, we have received the input, and that is part of our mandate.  But it's up to us to decide upon whatever we take on board and whatever we think is not so relevant to our mandate.  And we can naturally contribute ourselves.  So we ask the (indiscernible) to contribute in forms of recommendations based on the inputs we have.  But naturally, we can -- we should do our homework.  So any other comments?  Jimson, thank you.
 >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair.  When it comes to Baher (phonetic), I just look back that now I'm involved and there are still many stakeholders that still need to be involved in the process.  Thus far.  And one of, I think, the finest new job (indiscernible) is gap in internal processes, even at the national level.  Also regional level and then international level.  There's no doubt about that.  
 When it comes to national level I can recall when we are talking about dot NG Nigeria there were a lot of issues.  There was no understanding among the stakeholders, but until the government took the leadership role and brought in everybody, that was when there was peace, there was harmony.  We are now working together.  I now have the privilege of being a part of ICANN, basically playing at least some very -- I appreciate the leadership there.  Some very neutral positions there, roles there.  And that is business.  The Government Advisory Committee too, at least from my experience from African perspective, awareness is a challenge because many government are not even aware that it could be involved in decision-making when it comes to the critical Internet, you know, resources.  Talking about the ccTLD and the new gTLD and even the other issues that (indiscernible).  But also this was a lot of language, you know.  We have language barrier.  Like Africa with more than 4,000 languages and 3,000 -- more than 3,000 ethnic groups, so it was also challenges.  Before you get information to the grass-roots it takes a little while.  
 So more information, the challenge of submitting information, and also bringing people together.  And also funding to do this campaign.  I think that we also see an important job to do here, to develop some good funding to proper awareness, even down to the grass root.  Because they are not aware, they don't know what they need to do, you know.  And this is very, very important.
 Then at the international level, well, it's an evolution.  The process is ongoing.  And I'm optimistic that by the time we're able to use the bottom-up approach we need to be clear what we need to do at the international level.  But basically, the challenge is getting the home together.  They say charity begins at home.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson.  One comment I can make is about the GAC and the ICANN, as far as I know, right, there are about 120-plus governments who are members of the Advisory Committee, Governmental Advisory Committee, but you have a point here that naturally out of this 120-plus countries, only about 60-plus who are actively participating or physically participating in the meetings.  But I think there is a progress there as well.  And all the points you pointed out are extremely variable and we should concentrate on these points.  Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  Something that Jimson said really sparked -- and Grace's comments really sparked my interest in commenting on the aspect of informed awareness.  And informed participation and how much more we need to do to explain the relevance of Internet governance to the decisions that affect the use and the usability and the availability of the Internet and the online world.
 We often use the word "internet" as a code word when we actually probably mean the World Wide Web, social networks, all of the rich sources of stored data as well as the Internet which connects those together.  And I think one thing when we start thinking about where's work being done, we may actually find ourselves needing to parse that a little bit more to think about whether we're talking about online content or we're talking about transport.  But in terms of thinking about awareness, I think explaining in more citizen-friendly language what we would say in business is layman's language, but citizen-friendly language what is going on in Internet governance that is a policy or a decision that may affect legislation or it may affect a regulatory change or it may affect an initiative that your government is going to be  taking.  If citizens are reading in the local media or seeing -- I was privileged to be invited to speak at AfICTS summit in July in Lagos and spent a fair amount of time talking to the Nigerian press about what Internet governance is and why it matters on a global basis.  Because they were looking at it -- they were very interested in why AfICTA would be engaging in global activities as well as -- and why they would be engaging and working with the Nigerian government to focus on policies that the Nigerian government was addressing.
 So I'd like to put my vote with, I think, both Grace and Jimson and others about the need for us to think about the importance of lack of awareness as a major barrier to how stakeholders can learn about the activities and how they can participate.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn.  Raising awareness is the expression I hear most.  Saudi Arabia.  Majed.
 >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  This is a -- a very good and important question in regards to the barriers, for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance.  
 Among the various stakeholders groups identified in Tunis Agenda, we believe that it's only the governments who are unable to participate in their role in Internet governance.  As I stated earlier, there is no effective mechanisms for them to undertake that role, which is the development of international Internet-related public policy in consultation with all stakeholders.  Enhanced cooperation was intended to provide this mechanism and the process toward the implementation of enhanced cooperation was to begin by first quarter of 2006.  However, governments supporting implementation of the WSIS outcomes have reached the point of creating this group and its mandate as it's stated in the UNGA resolution.  The purpose is to make recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda.
 In regards to the other questions, how can enhanced cooperation address the issues toward global social and economical -- or economic development, bring us back to -- I mean, the creation of this mechanism -- and this relates to Question 6 is how to implement enhanced cooperation.  We proposed that to establish a body, regardless it's a new body or under the U.N. system umbrella, and the enhanced cooperation body is a body and its related process mandate to (indiscernible) international public policy pertaining to the Internet.  The processes will address the details of how issues are introduced, studied in consultation with all stakeholders, debated, agreed, disseminated, adopted, and implemented.  But the first is to establish the body.  Or to provide the platform for the government.  As I stated, in the U.N. family funding, Secretariat support, high-level processes, these details will follow.  But first we have to provide this platform.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  Virat, please.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, just a clarification.  There are four questions here.  Are we going one by one or can we go for all?  How do you want to proceed?
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: As you wish.  I would like to take the whole group together, and if you want to spec -- treat questions specifically, feel free to do it.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  The question I wanted to remind myself, Mr. Chairman, is about barriers that remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in the representative roles in global Internet governance.  This is not specifically about enhanced cooperation.  So I just want to be sure that we sort of attack that question.  And I would argue, based on the comments that have been received from 60-odd bodies, that it would seem that governments and business have most access to information, activities, and events related to Internet governance.  I would also argue, based on the evidence here, that the technical communities have perhaps the second best access and the civil society and academia easily the least access.  I would quote, with your permission, from the submissions of Anja Kovacs for the project director for Internet Democracy who seeks distributed Internet governance process where she lists two specific reasons why civil society specifically is unable to participate.  The first being procedural matter where much of the events that is organized are very last-minute and in developing countries and so information, availability, et cetera, is a challenge for civil societies, except those who are the regular players in this arena.
 The second that she lists here, and correctly so, and this seems to be affecting more than just the civil society, is the issue of funding.  Since we have not explored technology to its fullest extent, I think the point of funding is coming in the way of making our processes multistakeholder and certainly becoming one of the most significant barriers that are listed here.
 I would also quote from the inputs provided by the United States where they have proposed solutions, including outline clear modalities with the default being the civil society can attend and participate on an equal footing with other stakeholders, provide advance notice -- meetings for notice -- notices for meetings, make available travel fellowships, publish all relevant material with no passwords, et cetera, and more participation.  So I think excellent suggestions here from the inputs which we've included which I urge that the house consider as we respond to this question.
 I now turn to the second question in the group of four which relates to how can enhanced cooperation address the key issues towards global social and economic development and here I quote from the India submission from the government -- sorry, it's a submission from another civil society from India, SFLC, which talks about the fact that infrastructure can play a major role in bridging this divide and any discussion or decision that allows for all stakeholders to act together in a covenant manner nationally will then become an example for what can be done globally.  I think sort of evidence has been provided here.
 On the third question that we're dealing with relating to what actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalized people in the global information society I again turn to the government of India -- sorry, the Indian submission by SFLC which states, and I quote, "that an established need to identify areas where further efforts and resources need to be pooled for the marginalized community.  Firstly, affordable access to information and communications technology, digital literacy, for the rural poor and other marginalized groups, including women and children, should be assured."  Much of what has been spoken by my colleague Jim here.  And I think a very special effort.  But this, to a very large extent, is about providing physical access and multilingualism.  In a country like India, for example, we have 22 recognized languages.  There's a dialect almost every 20 kilometers and hundreds of mother tongues.  The rupee note carries 15 different scripts of how the rupee can be mentioned.  So it's -- you know, we're rich in diversity in that sense.  And so if it was taken as a microcosm of what the issue is globally, I think we have a good example to start.
 I come to the last question, with your permission, Mr. Chair, and what are the key issues to be addressed to promote affordability of Internet in particular developing countries and the least-developing countries, and here again, the multistakeholder role of all the parties is critical.  Private sector, as we have often spoken about for the last day and a half about investment, innovation, technology, human resources, infrastructure, et cetera, capital, the technical community, which is working very hard across the world to lower the cost of access, 85 to 90% of the remaining world, 60% of the unconnected world will connect on mobile devices.  Prices of mobile devices are being dropped sharply across the world with innovation and help from the technical community, so they have a significant role also to stretch the limits of spectrum and what it can do with regards to data because the facility that provides with regards to voice are quite different than data and online access, civil society which drives transparency, which drives accountability, and strives for lower cost.  
 So if you look at this holistically, even in this role of providing access to developing countries and least developed countries, each one of them has a role.  
 I will close by saying that the government in India, just as an example, has made a decision about two years ago to transform a universal service obligation fund which was collected from a 5% of every mobile bill that was paid by a mobile subscriber and was originally reserved for connecting rural India has been changed and the law has been changed with an agreement of all parties to the parliament.  And now $4.5 billion are being deployed to build a national fiberoptic network that will soon connect 250,000 villages purely for online access for the most part.  So this is a remarkable case where consumers using mobile phones have deposited money in an account which is now being used to provide rural access.  And so each one of those stakeholders I have just highlighted have a role in providing access especially with developed and underdeveloped countries.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Two comments.  I wouldn't call India a microcosm with 1 billion plus people.  
 The second comment is when you mentioned "spectrum," did you mean frequency spectrum?
 >>INDIA:   Yes.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Good.  Sweden.
 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chair.  Well, we -- I would like to start with saying that we do think that there are barriers left that we have to deal with when it comes to participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance.  And some of them have already been touched upon like the financial restraints, lack of awareness and not at least the issue of language, multilingualism.
 Those are definitely restraints that affect participation of all stakeholders, I would say, but maybe particularly civil society, academia and technical community.
 We also think that another barrier is the lack of policy transparency that still exists on many levels, both nationally and internationally.  There is often a lack of consultation with stakeholders before new policy is put in place, legislation is put in place.  And that is definitely a challenge for many stakeholders.
 In the international arena, we see this as well.  Just to take an example, documentation in some international organizations like the ITU, for instance, is only for members.  My government has certainly pushed this issue on many occasions, that we want to increase access to relevant documentation to all stakeholders.  So that is -- that is another issue.
 I think when we're looking at Question 12 about marginalized people and how marginalized people can be more -- can participate more in the global information society, we think that that is part of much broader issues, empowerment issues.
 For example, we have the question of gender equality which is very important.  We know that women today are to a lesser extent users of Internet, for instance.  So I think that's part of a broader issue of trying to empower citizens and empower stakeholders.
 When it comes to the issue of affordability, we certainly think that it's very important to create an enabling business environment through deregulation, predictable business environment and definitely fostering competition because we know from experience that competition brings down prices.  So we hope that we can work on some of the -- some recommendations that points in that direction.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Sweden.  I think we are on the right track.  We are working towards recommendations.  
 I can see Baher.  You wanted to take the floor?
 >>BAHER ESMAT:   Thank you, Chair.  I'm Baher Esmat.  I'm with ICANN.  So I echo the views of colleagues about -- on the question of barriers, about raising awareness and funding as key barriers for participation in Internet governance, particularly from developing countries.
 I also echo the views about language, language barriers.  Marilyn made a valid point about making information available in laymen language for the broader participation.
 One of the -- one other related issue we noticed in our engagement at ICANN and developing countries is the relevance of the issue itself.  And it was mentioned by the distinguished delegate from Brazil, you know, the example of, you know, the session at the IGF about developing issues and, you know, the new gTLD issue and whether it's relevant or not.  So the relevance of the agenda itself is quite an issue.
 And that's why I'm not in agreement with the view that the lack of a mechanism or the lack of mechanisms is the main barrier because oftentimes we have mechanisms in place.  But the issue is more about whether the issues and discussions are relevant or not.
 At the same time, there are key governance issues for developing countries that are mainly national issues.  They need to be addressed mainly at national issues like access.  Many of the contributions to the questionnaire recognized that access remains to be a key issue for developing countries.  And I would say that 99% of policy discussions about access, whether in terms of broadband access or availability of content in local languages, all these policies are more relevant to the national sort of governance dialogue.
 So I think it's more -- the other point I want to raise is, again, in relation to access and in relation to the question about the social and economic aspects of enhanced cooperation.  So there was the study of OECD, ISOC and UNESCO, I think, which identified one key fact about the correlation between the development of the infrastructure and the availability of local content.  And, again, this is something that is very challenging for developing countries.  And this is something that needs to be addressed more at national levels.  
 And if we're talking about mechanisms to address these issues, then we have to go back and, you know, using the term that many people use "that Internet governance starts at home."
 So I'm more towards, you know, wanting to see more discussion or more listing of issues in relation to barriers and all this.  And I think the exercise we're going to do shortly will identify whether those issues are relevant to the global agenda or the national agenda or elsewhere.  So I'll stop there.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Baher.
 Well, for the time being, we have heard very interesting contributions.  Some of them were controversial -- I mean, contradictory to each other.  But it just reflects the complexity of the task which is ahead of us.
 So I wonder if you would like to comment on this group of questions about the barriers, local content?
 I turn to observers, if you have any comments.
 Well, in that case, I think we have concluded the first round.  We have gone through all the questions.  We have given our comments, and we have had a rich discussion about all these issues.
 So what is ahead of us is on one hand to formulate recommendations.  On the other hand, we'd like to revisit the document which was offered to us by the voluntary task force and we were promised to have it by tomorrow.
 So, I'm reminded that Joy would like to take the floor.
 Joy, the floor is yours.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Thank you.  Thank you for checking in.  Can you hear me?
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Yes, very well.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Thank you.  I just wanted to comment on the barriers to participation and to emphasize the barriers for particular groups that are listed in some of the submissions.  And I'm quite concerned with some of the submissions in front of us.  I'm a little concerned that some input seems to be repeating the (indiscernible) that we focused on, a particular concern about whether a (indiscernible) is needed or not.  And I think that's doing a disservice to the hard work of submissions who have been active and taken submissions seriously.  
 And I would ask you to be reminded about that and to focus particular on the barriers of civil society from developing countries and particularly those who access -- have a really significant issue and for those half of the world's population who do not even have access.
 In particular, I am also concerned about the barriers for women and particularly for women's participation in Internet governance.  And this is the subject of a working group recommendation to the Human Rights Council.  
 And I would ask the secretariat perhaps to consolidate a list of recommendations in relation to participation from some of the other U.N. bodies.  I think that would be a useful input, if the working group could (indiscernible) as part of the recommendation acknowledge the other mechanisms and statements within Internet governance that have reached these barriers and made recommendations and actions on them.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Joy.
 I believe in our discussions we tried to touch upon all the submissions we received.  And we provided the kind of summary, which to my best knowledge, tried to really encompass all the relevant points and making an attempt not to forget about any of the contributions.
 In the group itself, I think there are representatives of U.N. bodies.  And as the meeting is open, there is nothing to prevent other U.N. bodies to follow what we are doing here.
 Saudi Arabia.
 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  We have listened with good interest to the interventions in regards to the barriers and to the understanding of how are we going to approach forward from this group.  
 However, Mr. Chairman, as the Saudi government, we came to this meeting and we have a mandate from the UNGA resolution.  And when we say "enhanced cooperation," it has to be as referenced in the Tunis Agenda.  And we are coming from paragraph 69 that there's a need for enhanced cooperation in the future to enable governments.  And being as a government, we are here to try to accomplish or start this mandate in regards to the enhanced cooperation and able governments to develop international public policy issues.
 Also, our references in regards to -- I have listened to the IGF dialogue and the enhancement and raise awareness of these, and we support this but in the same time, there should be in parallel the enhanced cooperation.  And I'm also referring to UNGA resolutions that the two -- the IGF and enhanced cooperation is two distinct processes.  The IGF is to provide the platform for all stakeholders to discuss dialogue, and the enhanced cooperation for governments is to provide the platform for governments to undertake their role.
 But I'm trying to speak here and try not to use the word "enhanced cooperation" or "IGF."  I will try to tackle the issue as it's facing the global as a problem.
 I heard that there's -- I believe that the existing processes are adequate and there is no need for governments to assume a larger role in Internet governance.  
 However, last night, my colleague and I were thinking of various issues on the Internet and how the current mechanisms are simply not able to handle them adequately.  So maybe when giving an example, we will be more clear.  And since I'm speaking in English, excuse me for my diplomacy.  I would rather we have this in all six languages, but I will do my best.
 Everyone is familiar, for example, with the prevalence of botnets, phishing, malware, viruses, identity theft, online fraud and sadly child pornography.  Who in this room has not received numerous spam messages containing an infected attachment or asking for the disclosure of personal identity information?  Recently Saudi Arabia was the target of denial of service attacks against two of our largest companies in the petroleum industry, Saudi Aramco and Sabic.  There are many more prominent examples around the world.
 Countries also face major difficulties dealing with the practices which is dangerous or illegal.  Most content providers are responsive to the hosts of their home base country.
 The governments of these countries will intervene with the content providers when they believe that content is inappropriate or unlawful according to their laws or norms.  But those governments are generally unhelpful when asked to intervene with content providers on behalf of other countries.
 A recent example for Saudi and many other Muslim countries was the YouTube video defaming the Prophet Muhammad based upon him.  Can someone tell me how existing mechanisms will solve the problem when someone in Saudi Arabia or any other countries loses their life savings in an Internet scam from another country or a major oil exporter has their operation shut down or major structure is turned off or government services are destructed or bank records are stolen?
 Can someone tell me how the private sector, civil society, standard bodies, academia, can possibly handle these issues alone?  Of course not.  The only chance for success is the active participation of governments and their full role developing and implementing international cooperation and public policy in full consultation with all stakeholders.
 We also have heard about the equal footing in regards to the decision-making policy, equivalent to the governments.  It is important to realize the governments are the bodies who have obligations to their citizens, to protect them from harm and to establish and maintain their rights both offline and online.
 No other stakeholder and group can perform this role in an unbiased manner.  Unfortunately, because if they are at the governments in the multistakeholder Internet governance model and the Tunis Agenda has not been implemented, many countries cannot adequately benefit from the Internet or help their citizens solve the issues they are facing online.
 In addition, some governments also cannot protect their rights as states when it touches the sovereignty of the states.
 There's an entity or one entity has tremendous advantage of being able to enforce its low simply because it controls or manages or has access to so much of Internet infrastructure but also great influence over content providers operating within its border and exercises influence when it suits its purposes.
 But it shows no willingness to extend the influence when governments requested to court content be considered insensitive or is morally offensive.  
 What we want is the following.  International cooperation agreements are necessary and important and have proved to work well and to the benefit of all in the field of ICT.  
 Good examples are frequency interference, spectrum harmonization, satellite orbits and compatible numbering.  Any government when presented with a claim of cross-border frequency interference, for example, will investigate and take action to correct the problem irrespective of what entity in its jurisdictions is causing the problem.  This could not happen without the direct involvement of governments.  No other stakeholders' group could do it or would even want to do it.
 The same problems face all governments when trying to provide the benefits of the Internet to their citizens while protecting them and at the same time maintaining stability and interoperability of the Internet.  The protection of citizens is the mandate of the governments.  No other stakeholders group can do it, and most have no interest in doing it.
 The current governance mechanisms do not and cannot successfully address most of the critical problems and issues within the Internet.  Governments should be able to protect their people and their entities in their territories both online and offline.
 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Saudi Arabia.
 Any other comments?  If not, I think this is the proper time to break for coffee.  And then I would recommend you to come back at :35, 4:35.  Thank you.
 [ Break ]
 [ Gavel ]
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Welcome back.  May I ask you to take your seats, please?  Thank you.  Before the coffee break we discussed Group Number 5 and more general questions, and I think we have come to the end of discussing the responses based on the inputs to the questionnaire.  We have gone through all the questions and it is my feeling that there's a sense of understanding, we understand each other, we know what -- what are the concerns of some of us.  
 On a more positive note, I can sense some kind of consensus on some issues.  So I would like to concentrate on those where we have the hope to achieve consensus.  We don't really have to agree on everything.  We don't really have to have all parties agree on everything.  We may have dissenting voices.  We have to keep in mind that we are formulating recommendations.  It's not a resolution.  Just recommendations.  And we try to fulfill the mandate we have been given by the U.N. General Assembly.
 So right now I suggest to you to start the exercise of drafting.  It will be a process.  We are not going to draft, right now, the final text.  I have asked the Secretariat to take the notes, your suggested text, and you can see it on the screen where our captioning will be available on the other screen.  I'm sorry for those of you who are -- who have your back to this screen, and some of you who are more fortunate can see both.
 At this time I would like to concentrate on questions where I sensed a common understanding, and I think that was Group 4 and Group 5.  So what I really want to do, the structure of the recommendations, I would follow the groupings we have been following during the two days up to now.  So we may like to put them -- the groups and start by Group 4, that is questions of developing countries, and I'm expecting you to provide some text, what are the recommendations you think should come to the document we are going to provide for the CSTD next May.  India, please.
 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair, and I think we have come to the perhaps the very important task which is of preparing a report of recommendations, a report with recommendations.  I think it's -- while the approach that you proposed which is to take those areas where we seem to have a broad consensus and thereby focus on that and leaving those where we feel that there are -- obviously there's still not convergence of views at a later stage, I think we have some reservations on this approach.  I'll explain why.  Firstly, we all agree there needs to be critical discussion within the U.N. fora.  We tend to leave the -- we tend to address all issues to start with and thereafter leave the final decision on those difficult areas to the last day.  Taking that approach I think is sometimes useful because you tend to see that -- well, unless there's a certain amount of pressure that has been brought on purely on the issue of time, there is no -- no serious effort by the delegations to sort of arrive at a consensus.  
 But having said that, in the current approach that we intend to follow, one -- there are issues which are difficult ones, we acknowledge and we have seen the diversity of views that are there, particularly on Group 2 and 3.  Completely leaving that to a later date might not be an appropriate way to go about because these differences persist in the last day.  Number one.
 Number two, there are decisions which are not to be made here.  They all require certain inputs from the capitals and require certain kind of consensus building not -- outside the room, as I said.  So my suggestion would be, Chair, would -- should we not start from the groups that we have prepared from the beginning and see whether there could be some consensus in terms of not necessarily the entire text but certainly on preparing some kind of, you know, (indiscernible) kind of language which would accommodate perhaps the idea that we intend to follow.  Because at the end of today -- because we already -- two days of our discussions are almost getting over, and on the third day we have -- unless we have something to take back to the capital at the end of this working group meeting, it might be difficult to get decisions during the next -- and which will be the last meeting for all of us.  So bearing that in mind, because if you have those issues which are difficult and they're presented on the last day of the meeting of the last session of the working group, I think we would not be in a position to mitigate some instructions from the capitals and thereby we would perhaps end up not making recommendations.  Which is not -- which is a sad story.  So I think as sometimes they say let's catch the bull by its horn and then see whether we can stand in front of it or we just run away from it.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mr. Reddy.  I am ready to consider your suggestion.  The reason I am suggesting the approach that what I suggested is to build on something, and that is your approach as well.  You want to have something to build on.  You are suggesting to at least to have some (indiscernible) on the different groups, that you can take back to capital, which is also a viable solution.  But we have to take also into account that during our discussions there was an effort made to identify issues and we have come up with 480-plus issues, which I don't think we can manage here, right now.  Even if they are been downsized to 150, we can't manage.  So I am not against making (indiscernible) and start with this text, but I can also see the danger of in case we don't agree on some text now, then all our future meeting or meetings -- because I'm not very sure that we will have only one meeting.  It very much depends on you and the results we achieve during the one hour we have now and tomorrow, the whole day.  
 So I'm just offering one option.  I take your option, but I'm also wondering how others feel about it.  Chris, please.
 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you.  I'm -- I find myself slightly confused.  I -- I thought we had undertaken -- we're undertaking a mapping exercise where we've got some issues listed and someone I believe is going through them and looking at duplicates and we're supposed to be having an exercise where we see what we end up with and see if they can go through a test as to whether they apply.  So how can we be working on resolutions until we've at least figured out what we're talking about?  I may have misunderstood, but it struck me that we were trying to work on a mapping exercise.  I'm lost.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Chris, I would like to make it clear to you we are not working on resolution.  We are working on recommendation.  Now, the -- it's not but it's -- it's -- it's a very important distinction.
 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I appreciate that.  Sorry.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: And I've made clear that probably the mapping exercise is being done -- well, the technical part to downsize it will be done by tomorrow and we may have a dry run on the basis which has been suggested, the five-step approach on some questions.  But I also made it clear that we are not going to continue it here because some delegations or many delegations are not in the position of going through this.  So they would like to take it back to capital.  And I also made it clear that I intended to have some kind of draft recommendations on some issues which we may have consensus on.  Sweden.
 >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman.  From our perspective, we think that it would be beneficial for the group to start with the two last groups because we have the same sense as you do, Chairman, that that's probably the areas where we have the biggest chance of, at this stage, reaching consensus on some recommendations.  And I think it would be to the benefit of the whole group and contribute to building trust in the group if we can actually move forward with some recommendations since we're already at this stage.  And I think also that we can benefit -- and I have at least benefited from the discussions we have had here these two days, and I'll bring that back to capital and to stakeholders back home and maybe work a little bit back home on potential thinking around recommendations on the more difficult issues.  And I think we can also utilize the time that we have from now to the next meeting to discuss with each other also in different constellations on those more difficult issues so that we can come better informed and to the next meeting and start working on some of the more difficult issues by then.  
 And also in relation to the mapping exercise, I think the mapping is very important and our sense is that it especially benefits the questions in Group 1 and Group 2, maybe Group 3 and therefore, we think that we can do things in parallel.  We can do the mapping exercise to help us with moving forward on those issues in Group 1, 2, and 3, and at the same time we can actually start to work on recommendations for Group 4 and 5 where we have more concerns.  And so we agree with your approach.  We think that that would help us build confidence in the group and maybe then that we would -- we can use when we approach those more difficult issues at a later stage.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden.  
 Marilyn.
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Actually, Chair, both that Constance and Phil had their -- and also Parminder so I will just wait my turn.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Parminder?
 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  Two set of issues trying to comment on how we are working and how possibly we can give a productive outcome at the end of the whole period of our working group.  
 One is about our express mandate, and the other is about expectations of the world from us.  
 And about the express mandate, first, and as the Chair reminded us oftentimes that there is a mandate, and let's stick to that.  And the mandate is to examine the Tunis Agenda's mandate of enhanced cooperation and to give recommendations to fully operationalize it.  Now, that's the mandate.
 If we have to do something on the mandate, we have to go to the Tunis Agenda and do a search of the word "enhanced cooperation" and read each section, 68 and 69.  Yeah.  68 first.  No, no, 68, 69 and then 70 and 71.  
 And it says that there is enhanced cooperation which is defined as the issue of international public policy issues.  Whoever has to do it, I'm reading the question out because that may be contention, equal footing of the governments or not or all stakeholders.  
 But it is very clear.  We need to deal with international public policy issues related to the Internet.  There's clear pointing to the fact that there are international public policy issues to be dealt with.  They are important.  And, obviously, that's why you find mention of the words in the document.  And they need to be dealt with.  
 We need to figure out how to deal with them and that's the principle mandate.
 The question of whether developing countries participate in that -- and "that" is not known yet -- or what are the barriers of participation, otherwise to "that" does only come after we have discussed to some length what is "it" we are talking about, how are we going to address international public policy issues, multistakeholder, multilateral, only private sector, whatever.  
 But that comes before we talk about the role of developing countries or various participation because I can't talk about the role of developing countries -- in what? In keeping their citizens happy?  In warfare?  What?  It is about their responsibilities in international public policy issues.  And it if that is not spoken, I don't see how 4 and 5 can be spoken.  
 And to speak about 4 and 5, it anticipates that there is an existing mechanism in some ways which is doubted by many people here, not a consensus but some people doubt it.  
 So I don't see how -- till we deal to some extent, whatever level we can reach a consensus, with the issue of mechanism, we discuss the role of developing countries in that mechanism because I don't see 4 and 5 as role of developing countries -- I'm repeating myself -- in just something but in that particular mechanism, whether it exists or not and, again, barriers to participation in that particular thing which can be defined only by 2 and 3.
 The second part of my intervention is about a certain kind of disappointment with the fact that this group sits with a global responsibility to address questions which are bothering a lot of people everywhere.  The newspapers are full of it.  Stories are being written.  People are discussing in their bedrooms.  And we seem not directly addressing questions which people are bothered about.  The U.N. working group is supposed to be addressing the world's problems.  The world's problems are of many kinds.  They are not just related to what has been called recent revelations but many other Internet-related issues, the consumer rights across borders, the cross-border data flows, Internet connectivity.  
 Taxation, where does value accrue?  And where does tax take place?  
 Cybersecurity.  
 There are huge issues that people are talking about, to see that those issues either do not exist or are being dealt with at the present is the core we need to address.  
 After that, we address how to enhance the system by increasing participation of different people.  So I think both ways we need to go to the meat of the issue, see where we can converge.
 There was a lot of work happening outside this room.  ICANN goes to the President of a country, makes some offers.  They say that we should hurry towards internationalization of oversight.  Those words are not being mentioned inside the working group which has the global mandate through a legitimate global U.N. process to be looking at those questions.  It is something, I think, which is not quite right when we are well past the halfway stage of this working group.  
 I think we need to directly address these questions, find the views of the people, try to converge them as far as we can.  But I think we cannot avoid those key issues to be dealt with first.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I think during the two days, it has been said many times that we have a mandate and we try to stick to this mandate.  We have compiled a questionnaire.  We have received inputs.  We have discussed these inputs, reviewed them, and we have spent about two days reviewing and having some sense what are the main concerns.
 I have nothing against bringing on board new issues as I told you because we are really mandated to give our opinion as well.
 However, during the two-day discussion we had up till now, we have been discussing the inputs and some comments we have made on that.  So it was my understanding that the group would like to work in this way.
 And I repeated many times that we are going to work in this way and I had no objection to that.  So I reiterate my proposal to work the way I suggested.
 But I'm ready to listen to other voices.
 Phil?
 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   I think listening to discussion thus far in your proposal, Chair, has been quite interesting.  In the two days that we've sat here, I think it has been recognized that since the agreement of the output of WSIS, the world has moved on.  We are more than halfway through what we think is our term of activity.  And even in recent weeks, there has been activity that we couldn't have perceived six months ago being of interest to us in the discussions.
 If we look at the mandate which says "to examine the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation," there are some things that I think we have talked around as the distinguished delegate from Sweden suggested, which is there are recognized barriers and issues around participation.  And I think there is some value in looking at or trying to look at through the eyes of required activities to ensure that all voices, all stakeholders, are engaged.  It is right to say that not all stakeholders are engaged.  And we should work to ensure that our recommendations or at least one of the recommendations, I'm sure, address and endeavor to resolve those barriers.
 Will we completely resolve those barriers?  I would like to think yes, but I suspect not.  I think in taking it forward and looking at Groups 4 and 5 which are fairly wide areas, I do think applying some sort of mapping exercise to try to take elements of 4 and 5 to make sure that what we are recommending on specific issues are of value and can be seen to achieve consensus within the room.  It is not to say that we do 4 and 5 here and then walk away from it, but I think it is a part to say we try and do one, one issue that we have some sort of agreement on is important, that we can try out the mapping mechanism.  Does that work?  Does that have to be changed?  Have we got it right?
 One of the issues I think we are facing is we're trail blazing.  We don't have a process.  We are making it up as we go along almost.  And I think while that's good and it proves that we're responsive to the needs, it takes time for us, I think, to come to some sort of agreement.  
 So I think if we are looking at our mandate and looking at a way forward, I think taking a very specific approach to the areas where there seems to be consensus, trying to select an issue from those areas and seeing whether or not there's some value in taking those forward, I think, would be a useful way forward.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Phil.
 While you have the floor, can you give me some concrete example how you think the way forward is in Group 4?  Any concrete...
 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   I think I would pick up on the debate that we had before coffee and I think specifically referenced by the delegate -- distinguished delegate from Sweden on access to all multistakeholders in this debate.  
 I think Grace made a very useful intervention prior to coffee as to what the barriers were, and I think there's some activity there that we could look at to see whether or not we could make a recommendation going forward as to how we might address or suggest that those barriers be addressed.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  As far as I can see, this is very much along the line I suggested.  Constance?
 >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:   Thank you, Chair.  I would just like to support the point Phil made and the distinguished delegate from Sweden.  
 I think Parminder raises a very critical point which is the global responsibility of this group which is to look at hard issues.  And a lot of work went into trying to list these issues, including emerging difficult issues.
 And in terms of methodology, I would propose that we follow the path discussed before the coffee break and try to have a rigorous approach in looking at these issues.  We could start with access.  We could start with multistakeholder participation.  And that exercise would naturally lead us to possible recommendations.  Rushing to recommendations without having done this mapping exercise seems difficult from my perspective.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Constance.
 Saudi Arabia.  Brazil?  Brazil, okay.
 >>BRAZIL:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  And thank you.
 Well -- sorry, I lost my notes.
 I'd like to say I see merit in the two approaches.  I think we -- well, first of all, I fully agree with India in that the most central issues we should tackle are contained in Groups 1 and 2.  Clearly, for example, the way Question Number 8 is drafted:  What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda?  This links directly to the mandate.  And also when we asked:  To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented?  So these are the core issues that are at the heart of our mandate.
 So clearly this -- if we have to dedicate -- if we have limited amount of time, this should clearly be the focus of our work.
 However, I also see merit in starting with Questions 4 and 5 in the spirit Sweden has mentioned to build confidence and establish models of parameters and also thinking that in the second stage we could benefit of the mapping exercise, a tool that would also enable us to tackle questions in Groups 1 and 2 more efficiently.  So the Number 4 and 5 would be, let's say, the low-hanging fruit that we could go and have a more concrete outcome.
 But, however, this -- I don't think you can disassociate this with the time constraints we have.  I think the most crucial issue -- and I don't feel there is clarity at this most whether we are going to have one or two meetings.  If we are going to have two meetings, I think we can allow us the luxury of not engaging to Groups 1 and 2 now, allow us some more time to go about it in our next meeting but with the assurance that we will have opportunity for that.
 And I fully agree with India, that if we have just one more single meeting, it would be very difficult to tackle at the same meeting, to start dealing with different issues and at the end of the same meeting coming out with solutions.
 So maybe, Mr. Chair -- I don't know the appropriate moment.  But I think this decision on how to go about it should be linked to the decision whether we'll have one or two meetings.  I think that might provide some more clarity for all of us.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  Very helpful.  Really, really helpful.
 So before I give the floor to Saudi Arabia and then I can see Jimson, I would like to think about the possibility of having more than one meeting next year.  I suggest us to have one meeting in January and one meeting in February.  I leave it to you now.  
 And let's listen to Saudi Arabia.
 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  I understand the time constraint that we are facing for this very delicate job to come up with the recommendations.  But we can have a recommendation, I believe, by this meeting, but is it going to relate to the mandate of the group or not?  That's the core -- I mean, that's the importance, that the recommendation relates to the mandate of the group.
 And I would like to bring the attention that the Cluster 4 and 5, it has been answered based -- or after the questions that relates to how to implement enhanced cooperation and what are the mechanisms.  And when we answered that, we got the input.  Then we reach a consensus in regards to the role of the developing countries.
 So the core is to undertake Question 2 and 3 first.  Then we will have, I mean, no difficulties going to 4 and 5.  But we cannot talk about participation.  Participation in what?  The role of the developing countries in what?  So it is very important to start with 2 and 3.  And even if we are going to have two meetings, that as of to date puts us 50% of the work of the group even if we have two meetings.  This is the second meeting.  And we are approaching half or almost 2/3 of the second meeting.  So it is very important to start with the core mandate to get the recommendations.  Then it will be very easy to decide the role of the developing countries in the recommendations that we have and then how to enhance the participation in enhanced cooperation.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Saudi Arabia.
 I think we had today discussions so we don't have to pretend that we haven't discussed these issues.  And we don't have some kind of understanding what is on the table.  So I believe that all of us have kind of an understanding what we are discussing.
 Jimson.
 >>JIMSON OLUFUYE:   Thank you, Distinguished Chair, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.  Please permit me to just make a few comments with regard to the issue at hand.
 Shortly before we went for tea break, there was an intervention by the distinguished representative from Saudi Arabia with regard to the role of government and the mandate as has been well articulated by Parminder and many others that have spoken.
 Well, from the business constituency, from the business and from developing countries, we do know clearly that government have a very clear role.  Governments are the sovereign rule in the face of citizens.
 What we also are saying is that, yes, there is some dynamicism -- there is some dynamic evolution.  Saw that while the government leads, it also leads with business and stakeholders so that we can all have the people together.
 I would say this.  I also want to illuminate the fact that when we talk about rule of law, it's already agreed that rule of law offline is the same as rule of law in the online world.  And as such, how has it been tackled in the offline world?  I believe through a lot of collaboration, through a lot of bilateral agreements.  A lot has been achieved.
 Even when it also drags into the online world, let me give you this illustration, something that happened in Nigeria not too long ago, maybe about four, five years back.  There was a case of online fraud performed by a Nigerian citizen in Brazil.  And the guy ran to Nigeria and (indiscernible) mighty structures in Abuja and many places.  A true cooperation between Nigeria and Brazil, the guy was tracked down and (indiscernible).  And the company back in Brazil got at least some of the -- got justice.  
 So what I'm saying is that government has their clear role and it is not in discord.
 What we are also saying now is that we need to walk with existing mechanism, strengthen the existing mechanism.  For example, it is such a great privilege that I'm here with my colleagues here, government, all the stakeholders, discussing this international issue.  We are already discussing it.  
 And I believe, Distinguished Chair, after this time out, whatever we agree will go to the CSTD.  What the recommendation is, it will go to the CSTD.  We are a composition of CSTD already.  And CSTD, from there, it will go to ECOSOC and ECOSOC to G8 where governments really persuade it.
 So my submission is that, yes, we are making progress.  We can actually really start some form of recommendation.  Once we do the mapping, clearly everybody sees.  And we also have some middle points, some understanding.
 So we have existing mechanism.  We need to recognize this.  The government already played the role, and we also support it and play also a role -- important role.  
 And after this, CSTD will -- I have the privilege of being in the CSTD meeting, one of the meetings.  And there's room for improvement.  But we're making progress.  So what we have currently can really pack in a lot of things if we focus on it, bilateral agreement, collaboration, cooperation, can pack a lot of things while we look forward to the optimum solution as the case may be.
 I just want to illuminate this question with regard to the role of government, which is undeniable very important.  Sovereign rule is very important.  There is a mandate for government which we will respect.  Our government takes the lead in Africa and we follow.  If government does not really move, we are happy the government is willing to come with them to move together.  So we understand the role of government.  But at the same time, at this top level, we should not complicate the matter necessarily.
 Finally, we got to the meeting periods, well, I wouldn't mind being around if you want to have three more meetings.  But the funding issue is a challenge.  So it is a major program we're into, and there is no funding.  So is that a demonstration of the seriousness at the top level?  
 So there should be some really commitment from the part of government that set this up.
 So this is good, Chair and colleagues.  I just want to say that, well, as much as we can, if it is just one meeting, I personally will still be able to still try to fund myself to be here for one more meeting.  Two more, I will need help.  I'm a small business.  And I feel that I have constituency, a lot of constituencies, as a matter of fact.  So if we start making progress with recommendations and tidying up the mapping process, it will be better for us.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Jimson.  I fully understand your concerns and naturally take note of that.  And probably if I suggest to have more than one meeting, I would suggest to have one meeting in January and eventually, if needed, to have an additional meeting in February in order to be able to have some contingency to be able to finish our work.
 Marilyn, you wanted to take the floor?
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Yes.  I think both the U.S. and Phil were -- and Virat.  But I'm happy to speak, but I don't want to get in front of other people who have their flags up.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I have a list and you are on it.
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Fantastic.
 [ Laughter ]
 What I wanted to -- first of all, I'd like to echo the comments that my colleague Jimson made.
 Even when there is funding available, that funding goes, first of all, to governments, to civil society and to academics.  It never goes to small businesses.  And this is a significant burden particularly for small businesses to participate.  And we need to be really committed to having the diversity of participation.  The vast number of businesses that will be starting in all countries are going to be small businesses.  And that is where the engine of economic growth and bringing the kinds of public policies and access to the world that we want to see happen.
 So if we don't have the ability to have the participation of SMEs in our considerations and our deliberations, we are really missing a critical element of those who can help to provide thoughtful solutions.  So I want to just reinforce the concern about that.
 I think we also have to understand that it is important to bring experts from capital for governments and to bring experts from the other stakeholders, not just to rely on the folks who are here in Geneva or are local from any stakeholder group because of the expertise and the depth of understanding that is needed.
 I would much prefer, Chair, that if we have -- that we have a longer meeting, even as long as four days, and that we dedicate our work.  Many of us participate in other U.N. entities and activities, such as the ITU.  We're quite familiar with multi-day meetings.  So if we had this much work to do, one approach would be to have a four-day meeting and have only one meeting and to really dedicate ourselves to be able to diminish the cost implications of travel.
 But I took the floor really to make a comment about the Group 4 items.  I've listened to concerns expressed by some participants that we can't talk about participation in what but, in fact, we ask questions.  And over 60 respondents found answers to questions about participation in what.  We may not be able to address the question about participation in a new mechanism since I don't believe there's consensus in the room on new mechanisms.  But we certainly could look at Question 10 and Question 15.  I think there is one other question.  Because we have robust answers.
 We are an expert committee and we ask people to provide comments.  And I want to be sure that we are living up to our commitment to those who submitted comments that we are focused on their answers.  And there will be when we start talking about solutions probably some differences of opinion.  But I do think we could start with Group 4.  
 And generally I found in the long number of years I've been working in these fora, it's always better to start with the low-hanging fruit and have a couple of successes before you start diving into the deep end of the ocean.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Marilyn.
 As for the suggestion of having a four-day meeting, eventually a five-day meeting, I have to tell you that I'm really enjoying your company.
 [ Laughter ]
 It is a real pleasure to be with you.
 >>MARILYN CADE:   Chair, I hope you are not going to take a poll on whether everyone else agrees.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   No, no, no, no.
 So I am ready.
 [ Laughter ]
 I'm really ready to have a four-day meeting or a five-day meeting.  So much the better.  And eventually it may be a good idea.
 So I had to fight to have a three-day meeting because originally it was meant to be a two-day meeting.  But I'm ready to have the four-day or five-day meeting and probably it will have small businesses to come and civil society and all of our representatives because the extra cost is much less.  Probably we have to ask other stakeholders how they think about it.  But that's another issue.  I'm ready for that.
 As for the low-hanging fruit, I like this expression, of course, and personally I'm all for it.  But it's up to you naturally what you choose.
 So next one on my list is Virat.
 >>VIRAT BHATIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I think the house would agree that three or four issues that have dominated the discussion over the last two days is about government's role in participation.  The very difficult circumstances that is placed over developing countries are to participate in the Internet governance processes, even more within that the civil society groups and to some extent academia, and moving forward to identify what could be the mechanisms as well as said on day one that the heart of the problem is between Question 4, 8 -- 4 and 8 essentially.
 But I think we need to remind ourselves that we can't be a solution in search of a problem.  We can't start drafting recommendations unless we have -- and most of us have agreed on that at some stage or the other -- a clear problem definition which is identified by the issues and a mapping exercise which tells us through the five-, six-step process, whatever we finalize on, which of the issues that need the kind of mechanisms that have been suggested by some.
 And I think the importance of the mapping exercise is underscored by the fact that if you look at the responses of the people who took the time to respond to us, the 60 responses, they've done a very elaborate job of putting those down as bullet points or numbers.  And I think they deserve the importance and the consideration as we drive towards identifying mechanisms which is principally at the heart of Question 8 or Item 2, as it were.
 A question has been asked about what should be the role of developing countries in what.  I think a similar question can be asked that we start writing recommendations for mechanisms to address what.  
 So I suppose this is a chicken-and-egg story, and we have to begin at some stage where we can all find a basic consensus.  My guess or assessment at least is that the last two buckets found a fairly high level of consensus in the sessions that you chaired earlier today.  And that might be the appropriate place to begin work.
 I would also argue that with regards to the meetings, I think there are 15 participants here who have traveled from outside of Geneva that are on the three stakeholders that are seated at this table.  And there are about six or eight on the observer side who have traveled.  You have very kindly allowed 20 observers but only eight -- seven or eight have come in.  In the civil society, there are only two participants.  On the technical community, there are three out of five.  So I think there's -- sorry, three participants on the civil society side.
 I think it's clear that these are the groups that are having difficulty even coming to this meeting.  So given that they're having such difficulty even coming to a meeting which was planned for months and funding could have been arranged, I think the point that was made by my colleague here, Jimson, and others, we need to focus firstly on the latter two buckets.  
 And, second, if a meeting has to be held, we would request two things of you.  One is try and combine it or bring it close to another event which allows the participants to defray their costs.  And look for a four-day meeting because I think it is -- while it might be an imposition on the time of the governments which are in Geneva because they have many, many things to do, I think the incremental cost of staying for a day is a small fraction, 150, 200 Swiss francs at best, even lower in some cases, than all of our costs of flying and sort of parking yourself twice over for three days.  So if you could please consider that suggestion.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Virat.
 As I told you, I have nothing against having a four- or five-day meeting, on the contrary.  And your point is taken.  Jimson's point is taken.  And probably all of us -- or many of us are sympathetic to this solution.  And thank you for offering that.
 I have Iran on the list and USA and we have Avri who is a remote participant from the civil society.
 Iran, please.
 >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you for your efforts.  You're trying to solve the problem as soon as possible and as much as possible.
 I may have been on your side first that we have to start with the easiest issues to solve, to make an example of our cooperations.  But listening carefully to the room, I think the matter is not to start from deep ocean or shallow waters.  I think the matter is to start with the core issue, which is more important.
 We need to finish first the core issues.  As you heard from me in the morning that the other questions like 10 or 15 are very much related to the answers on Question 3 or 2, therefore, when we don't have -- or we have not reached any conclusion on the core issue, how come we can go to the end of the matter?
 I can make this example that we are constructing a building.  Do we start from finishing, or do we start from the foundation?  So the core issue which is the first and second group of questions are the foundation.  Let's start from the foundation, not the finishing.  That will help us to go faster in the other steps we are going to take.
 On having the meetings for four days, Mr. Chairman, we are in your hands.  We are ready to whatever the room is going to decide to have four or three days, two or three meetings, no problem.  But let's start from the most important parts and very hard part of our job.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Iran.  
 United States?
 >>UNITED STATES:   Thank you, Chairman.  Thank you, Chairman.  Chairman, this is to signal our support for your approach to meet our mandate and to show progress as soon as possible.
 Chairman, we think it makes very good sense to approach first those issues that are likely to reach consensus.  
 I think Brazil put it first, low-hanging fruit.  And we agree and I think other speakers did as well.
 We think it's important to allow the mapping exercise to move forward so that we can be informed on difficult issues that we wish to find consensus.  Again, I'm remembering words -- if I'm remembering correctly of what the Ambassador from Brazil said, it would be very helpful to know where we are to better inform where we're going.  
 We think it is important to take the time we need, whatever time that is in the estimation and assessment of this group, to address all issues, important issues, core issues, all of them, to find consensus.  
 So, Chairman, for these reasons, simply to come in and to support you in your approach.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, United States.  
 And, finally, if I'm not mistaken, it's Avri.  Avri.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Am I muted?  Am I unmuted?
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: You are unmuted, Avri.
 >>AVRI DORIA: I'm unmuted now.  Thank you.  I join those of my colleagues in the room who have suggested that we need to do the mapping exercise before we start to make recommendations.  I guess I'm among those who do not understand how we can make any recommendation if we haven't finished the analysis.  We have done a first discussion of the comments we received, but we have not done yet the analysis that the mapping exercise represents that brings all of these things together, that maps them against existing institutions and that finds the gaps, the gaps that I believe were our mandate to go back and see what they fill.  
 I also agree with those that say we must start with the most important part, but I for one still don't understand which part is the most important until we have done a mapping exercise.  We may end up solving the problem for which there is already a solution if we try to do it before we have fully understood.  
 I also have a question.  At the beginning of the inception you said that we would not be working on a basis of consensus.  Perhaps I misunderstood when that statement -- when I heard -- or when I thought I heard that.  I'm being very careful with my words, spending all day at the IETF where one speaks one way and spending all night with this meeting where we speak another way has been very confusing for my brain.  But if -- if I didn't misunderstand we're not working on a basis of consensus, on what basis are we deciding what it is we, as a group, are recommending?
 And finally --
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Avri.
 >>AVRI DORIA: I support Marilyn's call for a longer meeting, if needed.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Avri.
 >>AVRI DORIA: I believe it -- yes.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Sorry to interrupt you.  We are working on the basis of consensus, which does not mean they are not -- we don't allow dissent.
 >>AVRI DORIA: I'm still confused.  So we are working on a basis of consent.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: You're not muted.  Consensus means consensus.
 >>AVRI DORIA: So we're working on a basis of rough consensus.  Okay.  Thank you.  
 Finally I wanted to say I support Marilyn and the other people who have called for a longer meeting.  I actually also believe that it is better to maximize the time spent at a meeting as opposed to dealing with multiple travel events which cost people a minimum of two days, sometimes for some people it's four days just to travel to and from a meeting.  If that needs to be done, fine.  But if we can maximize the time, and again, I think it's very important for various reasons to have a very strong notion of remote participation for whatever meeting we do.  In my case I had a conflict because of an important technical meeting.  In other cases it might be funding, it might be other events.  Participating in a meeting from 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. is okay as long as one can do it.  And I appreciate all the efforts that have been made to make it possible.  But I think that is essential medium in terms of supporting everyone in this group and supporting all the important observers who can contribute to this important role.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri.  Anyone else who would like to take the floor on these procedural issues?  India, please.
 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  The debate seems to have started from this end of the table.  I think, you know, we again have a bit of a Catch-22 situation here.  One, as I said, the particular -- we are talking the process now.  We aren't talking the substance.  I think to be very clear, some colleagues have gone down the path of, you know, looking at the substance and drawing conclusions and others are not interested.  I don't think that's the case.  The (indiscernible) for arriving at very positive and concrete recommendations is when we actually come to do -- as we know, let's at all agree to that, there are some difficult areas.  Our difficulty sitting as part of the representatives of the government is that these decisions are not made just in this room.  They are to be made back home.  There will be consultations.  All that we need is, if we decide to go down that path, we need to know what are those issues.  Because we cannot come to the last meeting and be told this is the last meeting and then we are presented with a situation for which we will not have answers.  And that's the short point I'm making.  
 So if we can find the solution, we should be able to do that.  Whichever way we go, I mean, we have great confidence in your leadership -- I use the word "leadership" -- and to take it back there.  Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, I'm listening to you very carefully, and I can't help thinking about the questionnaire we had, the answers which have been made available, and the summary which was made available as well.  So we cannot pretend that we don't know the issues.  We cannot pretend that back home people didn't know the issues who are responsible to -- for all discussions on the governmental level.  So I don't think that this is a proper way of putting it.  I fully agree that we need agreement, some of us need agreement from back home, or at least need to consult.  But having said that, all the information was available and we knew the issues, we knew what we came here for, and we knew what was ahead of us.  We have to work.  Now we are discussing how we are going to work.
 The easiest part is whether we are going to have -- well, probably we are not going to have two meetings, we are going to have one meeting.  And as I hear from the room, there is a kind of agreement that we shall have a four -- eventually a five-day meeting.  Which should be back-to-back to some other important event.  Probably we have to consult our calendars.  There's an IGF open consultation on the one hand, there are important meetings in the ITU, council working groups, this is (indiscernible).  So probably we have to go back to your calendars and find out the appropriate way to handle it.  It's most unfortunate that we cannot really take many more events into account which may be conflicting.  I'm referring to eventually to IETF meetings or ICANN meetings or -- I'm referring only to meetings which we have in Geneva.  That's one point.
 And so the second point, how we are going to proceed.  I heard three approaches.  One approach was, don't do anything until we go through the mapping exercise.  But we have -- we have heard as well that if we go into the mapping exercise, we need support for some of us.  We need support from back home.  Because we are going to make kind of value judgments and we are going to set categories and we are going to classify different issues which have been submitted to us which probably those who submitted to us vote -- or felt very important and they are very important for them.
 So I believe if we go into the mapping exercise, a full mapping exercise, it may take the whole day tomorrow, but it will take a couple of more weeks.  That's one point.
 The other point is, I heard the approach that eventually we should go and tackle the core issues.  I heard also that we cannot tackle core issues before we do the mapping exercise.  I heard as well that we need some confidence building.  And it -- it was said that eventually some questions in Group 4 and 5 would serve this purpose, to help us to build some confidence and to find out for me how this group can work together.  Up to now, we have been discussing, we have had very nice debate, very good discussions, very good ideas, but as of now I think we have to work.  
 So I really think that probably as a compromise we should give a try to the mapping exercise, to start for a very short while and I have had the promise from observers that I will have a reduced list, and we can try, how does it work.  But we're not going to finish with that, and I don't intend to finish it here.  As we agree that we are not going to finish it here.  We agree that we are going to have a kind of working party which will be an open and developing party in the same way that we have the working group here.
 Now as for the core issues, if we agree that core issues are extremely difficult and may be some time damaging for the confidence if we fail at the very beginning, then probably I wouldn't think it's a wise thing, even though I -- I appreciate the logic concerning the foundation and concerning the building from bottom-up, but I also believe that at the end of the meeting we are going -- right now if we can have at least some kind of mechanism we can agree upon that is how to come to some consensus on recommendations, it would be extremely beneficial.  And it doesn't prevent us to attack the core issues when we have the result of the mapping exercise, when we have a clear picture and we will be involved in that, to attack during a long meeting, which I suggest to be sometime, as we have agreed, next year, to attack the core issues and all issues and we can come up with appropriate recommendations.
 So what I suggest for tomorrow, after having received the document, we start discussing the document.  I would suggest to have this discussion for about an hour, and then I also suggest to try the procedure how to achieve some kind of consensus on recommendations.  I hope this is agreeable to all of us.  Yes, Joy.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you.  Can you hear me?
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Joy, we can hear you.
 >>JOY LIDDICOAT: A brief comment.  Thank you to the Secretariat for sending the document to the list.  I wonder is it possible for us to make amendments to the document and post those back to the list.  I'm asking because some submissions are not included, and it might be helpful to get those.  But I also don't want to unduly (indiscernible) later a briefing on the document.  I think if there's some guidance on that I would appreciate it.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Joy, I consulted with the Secretariat and probably your request will be taken into consideration.  Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a five-minute spot for the observers before we break, and I -- I hope you are going to tell us good news.
 >> Thank you, Chair.  So we've been working on removing the duplicates from the document now and while we have some time to go yet but it should be done today.  So it's probably ready for tomorrow.  
 To answer Joy's question, perhaps not to confuse anyone, it might be best to send the list of issues that you have, Joy, to either me or the Chair and then we can get it and then we'll include it onto the list that we're working on now, if that's okay.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR MAJOR: That would be a perfect solution.  I'd prefer to send to -- to send it to the Secretariat.  Thank you.  Well -- just a request to observers, do you think you can make it available by 9:00 tonight?  Okay.  In that case, the Secretariat can send it out for the beginning of tomorrow's meeting.  
 So in this spirit I wish you a nice evening and I see you tomorrow at 10:00.  Thank you.
 ***Live scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***.
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
 8 November, 2013
 Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
 10:00 a.m.
 Geneva, Switzerland
 
 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome also to today.  I could see from the U.N. that it was a productive night, evening, morning.  We have a document produced by the voluntary task force.  They managed to bring down the number of issues from 483 to some 200, if I'm not mistaken.  But I'm told this is not the final and there's still some work to be done.
 So before starting our work today, I would like to give you some summary how I see the progress we have made during the second day of our meeting.
 So yesterday we discussed Group Number 4 and Group Number 5 questions.  And I think the discussion was very interesting and very fruitful, and I could sense a great deal of consensus on many issues.
 At the same time, we received the spreadsheet.  Yesterday it was 483.  Now I think it's down to 200.  These are issues which have been extracted from the responses to the questionnaire we have created.  And I understand that there was some additional contributions to this spreadsheet as far as the issues are concerned.
 So as I mentioned, the voluntary task group tried to eliminate the duplicates.  And we are facing now to identify categories and what is behind -- what is ahead of us, in fact, is to identify mechanisms and institutions.  So probably it's a huge task and I think we can agree that probably the time which is available for us is not enough, but we can have a test run, what I will propose a little bit later.
 So yesterday we have also gave some thoughts about the future meeting or meetings.  And it has been said that eventually, if we could have one meeting instead of two and one meeting would be longer, it would be beneficial for all of us.  And I think there was a kind of consensus on that issue.  So I would propose to have a third meeting, a five-day meeting, sometime in February back-to-back to the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS +10.
 Probably the secretariat should check the availability of the rooms.  So what I propose is the 10th to the 14th of February.  But we can discuss it, but definitely I would like to have a five-day meeting.
 We should take into consideration as well that we are going to have the IGF open consultation and the MAG meeting which I think -- I can't see Chengetai now.  But I think it's around the 17th, 18th.  I'm not really sure but somewhere around this time.  So probably it will fit into this long period.
 Yes, Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Chair, if I might just contribute to the consideration of the calendar for all colleagues for just a minute.  The WSIS +10/WSIS Forum consultation dates are fixed, organized at the ITU, 17th through 18th of February which is Monday and Tuesday.  Not all colleagues externally from stakeholders will be participating in person in that session but many colleagues from other stakeholders, which I'm not trying to address governments but other stakeholders, will participate in the IGF consultation, the IGF/MAG consultation.
 Could we consider for efficiency's sake also the option of the week following so a second option to consider would be 17th, 18th February is the fixed WSIS +10 meeting.  That, of course, needs to be respected.  Then, if possible, a three-day MAG/IGF meeting, a weekend and then the CSTD working group meeting.  I believe that would be the -- not looking at a calendar, but that would be the last week of February, the 24th.  Because if external travelers, those outside of Geneva, do not have to travel to the WSIS +10 meeting but will be traveling to the IGF, it would be more efficient time-wise to have the IGF consultation and the CSTD working group consultations adjacent to each other.  Just as a consideration.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Marilyn, for the -- for this information.  I have no preference.  My preference is to optimize on the costs and efficiency, of course.  It is really up to you.
 I'm ready to be with you, as I said yesterday, as I'm enjoying your company.
 [ Laughter ]
 And I mean it.
 [ Laughter ]
 Any time.  But probably not during Christmas.  But who knows.
 [ Laughter ]
 So, yes, Sweden.

 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chairman.  And good morning to all colleagues.  Well, just to agree with the previous speaker, we have a preference for the week starting with February 24.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:   Thank you, Chairman.  Good morning, everyone.  I think the point that Marilyn has made which is a lot of stakeholders will come to the open consultation for the MAG and they could stretch themselves over the weekend and stay back for the next four or five days for the conference.  So that we do support the issue of moving it the week after the MAG meetings.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Okay.  I have no problem with that.  I think we are going to have the open consultation on Wednesday and the MAG meeting on Thursday and there will be a consultation for the donor countries, donors, which will be on Friday and probably many of us won't be involved in this discussion on Friday.  So you will have one free day, Friday, to go to the mountains and ski.  And it is also applicable for the weekend.
 Okay.  So can we agree on the last week of February, a five-day meeting?
 Joy?  Joy, I can hear that you want to intervene.

 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Yes.  Good morning, everybody.  Good morning, colleagues.  I need to ask you to call a halt to this conversation because the remote participants cannot hear the conversation, nor can we see the transcript.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Joy.  I think we are going to fix it.
 Saudi Arabia.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And good morning, everyone.  We have no difficulties with the last week of February -- (typing noise).  But if we could ask the ITU in the cluster groups of the council working groups in February, we need to know because it might -- the following week, usually it's two weeks, council working groups.  And I'm not sure the WSIS +10, is it in the second week or the first week.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Can you check it?

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   I will.  And I will get back.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   On your Web site --

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   It is not on the Web site yet.  I checked.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Okay.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   I might coordinate with the ITU and get back to you this session.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Very useful.  Very useful.
 Yes, ITU, you don't know about the council working groups?

 >>ITU:   Thank you, Chairman.  Yes, but it is still under discussion and then it will be posted on the Web site soon but I will check it with the General Secretariat and come back to you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Well, provisionally, can we agree on the last week?  I think this is the most suitable.  Probably we can't find any other period which suits all of us.  That's clear.
 Jimson?

 >>JIMSON OLUFUYE:   Yeah.  Distinguished Chair, Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.  I support the last speaker about when the meeting should be called February 24th to 28th.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   So I can conclude that there's a support for this.  Probably we didn't take into account the ski holidays in Switzerland, but that's another issue.
 For me, the important thing is we agree on a five-day meeting.  It will allow us to work through all the issues which are ahead of us.  And I sincerely hope that at the end of the third meeting, we will have a consolidated document of recommendation.
 Ellen, please.

 >> ELLEN BLACKLER:  Thank you.  Good morning.  Can we talk a little bit about whether four or five days should be the meeting length?  Is there a way we could stretch out each of the days a little longer, maybe start at 9:00 instead of 10:00 and maybe keep it to four so we can do travel on the fifth day?

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   India, please.

 >>INDIA:   Good morning, Chair.  Good morning all colleagues.  We can fully support that proposal.  If we can stretch a little more and work for four days, we have no difficulty.  But we can also work five.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I have no difficulty starting at 9:00 and coming back at 2:00 and working until 6:00.  I really have no difficulties about that.  Still, I think we have to have a fifth day as a contingency.
 Yes, Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:   Mr. Chairman, whatever you do, please don't make it 9:00 to 8:00 and five days.
 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Well, I can't promise on the last day that we are not going to stay here up until 9:00 in the evening, but I will try to avoid it.
 Okay.  Let's come back to this issue.  Let's give a second thought.  We agreed on the last week of February.  We agreed that it won't be a three-day meeting.  It will be a longer meeting, eventually four or five.  I prefer to have a five-day meeting.  But let's get back to that.
 Now, what I propose now, we have the document provided by the voluntary task force.  And I understand it's coming or it's being -- they still need one minute.  What I propose, after we receive it, we have a one-hour slot to consider this document and I would like to have proposals how to proceed with the document.
 What I can see, the complexity of it requires some further thinking.  I really would like to have the proposals how to move forward.  Definitely, it is a very valuable document and it will help us to clarify the institutions to identify gaps so I believe this is something we should really take seriously into consideration.
 After the one-hour slot, we shall have coffee break.  Then I propose to get back to two things.  There was a proposal from India yesterday to kind of frame our work that is the end result, which are recommendations.  And I would expect to have some proposal from India concerning some text which is, I would repeat, a draft.  It is a draft and we are going to revisit everything during our last meeting.
 Having said that, I would like also to have proposals for Group 4 and 5 questions as far as recommendations are concerned.  Yesterday I heard that some delegates, some members, would like to propose some recommendations for this group.
 In case we can come up with a consolidated spreadsheet on the issues and we can come up with the framework for the recommendations and if we can somehow put some text into this framework, I think we have done a great job.  And this is a very solid basis for our next meeting.
 So I'm just turning to Sam.  You have the document?
 It is in electronic form?  It is available for the WGEC list?

 >> I just sent it to wgec at unctad.org.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Okay.  Thank you.
 First of all, I would like to ask you, is it acceptable the way I propose to move forward?  That is, one-hour slot to discuss the paper and after coffee break, we start discussion on framework for the recommendations and eventually populate this framework.
 If it is acceptable to you, just one technical issue.  I'm told by the secretariat, in case you need a printout which may be useful, it takes 10 to 15 minutes.
 Joy, still have problems?

 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Just a question, a clarification, please.  Perhaps it is an issue with the transcript or not quite hearing, I believe you suggested that after considering the document, we might need a framework for recommendations.  And I just wanted to clarify that process because I believe at the end of yesterday, we agreed to consider gaps in relation to what issues proposed before making recommendations.  So I'm just trying to clarify in relation to the proposed framework how that relates to the discussion and agreement we had at the end of yesterday.  If you could clarify that for me, please.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Joy.  Yesterday we agreed that we should move forward with the document.  I had a proposal to have some kind of test run on some part of the document to find out how it functions.
 It is my appreciation that we need additional work.  So I would propose to have a kind of working party who would move forward with the document which has real -- really -- (no audio.)
 (No audio to the scribes.)

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Is it okay?  Okay.
 So in the document, we still have, I think, three columns which are empty.  And it is not a one-hour job to populate it.  So that's why I suggest to have -- to create a working party to propose mapping of issues, and this will be a working party basically probably most of the time by correspondence.  It is up to you to find out if there is a possibility of creating some kind of collaborative platform.  I'm sure there is.  And naturally the working party should work in the same way as the working group, that is, with the contributions of observers.
 So that's the way I propose to move forward.
 Avri, you wanted to take the floor?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yes, I did.  Can I be heard?

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Yes, you can.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Because I can't hear you so I can't be sure but I can read.  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.
 I guess I am among those who was recommending that we really needed to complete this work before moving to recommendations.  However, understanding that that choice is not ours to make, I would like to point out and let the group know that a few of us within the civil society side have been working on an early set of recommendations to put a stake in the ground.  So if we are going to move to discussing recommendations, we also have a set that I will send to the WGEC list during the next interval so that hopefully that can be discussed with any plans that are put there by others.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Avri.  Very, very useful and very helpful.
 Parminder.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  And good morning to everyone.
 I understand we are now discussing for an hour how roughly the mapping could be done.  So I would -- I think that present categories are good, kind of consolidates the laundry list and then specifies current activities and approach -- approaches.  
 And after we do that, we need to convert it into what we have to come up with, and that is a study of the mechanisms, existing, needing to be strengthened and new ones.  That's the core of the issue.  And how these -- the list, therefore, relates to that.  And we have agreed that we are not going to come up with answers to those public policy questions but only to the extent that they lead us to the institutional requirements.
 So as we started to discuss, I think we need to reach -- it's good to kind of clarify the purpose of this exercise and I understand the purpose is somewhat to validate what has already been observed in Section 60 of Tunis Agenda, that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanism.
 Now that's where the whole enhanced cooperation discussion starts.  So we are kind of validating that and also adding the facts and wisdom of the last nine years after WSIS.
 So while I was thinking and also like Virat said yesterday about whether issues are local or global, there is a series of filters we can put on -- and figure out what kind of institutional requirements are needed.  The first is to judge whether these are public policy issues.  These are Internet-related public policy issues.
 Second, we judge whether they are international or global.
 Third, we judge whether some institutions are already dealing with them in a substantive manner.  
 And then we judge whether some of these issues are being dealt by some institutions but not adequately and not in a holistic manner, something Ambassador from Brazil has been insisting, that even if issues have been dealt, some of the issues are interconnected with other issues and holistic treatment requires some kind of new possibilities.
 And then next category is of issues which have been called orphan issues in some of the submissions.  I don't like that term.  But we are talking about issues which more or less are very new and have more likely possible right now institutional home.
 So that's it.  So if we are doing this to each of the issues, even it is rough, we don't have to agree on each element belonging to one or two.  It is enough that we find bunches under each and then we start talking of the institutional requirements, enhancements or new possibilities against each.  Thank you.
 I can get this list to the main list, e-list, and then people can see it.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Parminder.  I think it will be extremely useful if you did that.
 Your analysis, I think, is very close to the common understanding.  Some may have different ideas.
 Phil?

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   Thank you, Chair.  Good morning.  I'm not one for new ideas.  I leave that to others better than I.  But I just seek clarification as to your proposal for a working party or an ad hoc group, call it what you will, as to how you see that working going forward from this meeting in advance of our next meeting realizing that it's not that long a wait.  May sound like it.  Three months, 12 weeks, maybe 14 weeks.  So it would be good if you could share with us your thoughts as to how you see that time being used and how that group would work.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you for being practical.
 [ Laughter ]
 Naturally, there should be some kind of leader of this working party or ad hoc group or coordinator.  Let's call it coordinator.
 And the working group would be eventually a correspondence group or it may have conference calls, but there will be a rolling document to which all interested parties can contribute with the end of filling the gaps.  When I say "gaps," I mean in the sense of filling the empty columns and come up with a kind of final draft which will be submitted to this group for further discussions and approval.
 Now, as for who is going to be the coordinator is up to you.  It will be on a voluntary basis.  And whoever would like to join this working party or ad hoc group is free to do so.  I have no influence on that.
 So probably it will be a good idea to start with the beginning who is going to head this -- who is going to coordinate and I need volunteers.  I definitely would have a preference someone from the group, from the working group.
 Phil?

 >>PHIL RUSHTON: Into a dire space, but if you're calling for a volunteer, I'm happy to lead and take guidance from the group as to what I should be writing.  So I'm happy to act as the convener of that correspondence group.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.
 So it's basically a coordination task to -- and I would invite all of you to join the group, ad hoc group.  I would like you, Phil, lastly to give some working modalities as for the ad hoc group.  Let it be a correspondence -- probably the Secretariat can set up a correspondence site, reflector, or if you think of other means, eventually a collaborative platform, that would be fine as well.  Joy, you wanted to take the floor.  Joy?

 >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just wanted to reach out to also volunteer to support Phil and to thank him for his willingness to step forward and just to say I'm also willing to help volunteer to help assist, if needed.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: I'm happy that you volunteer.  Probably there's room.  There's enough work to be done for 2, even for 40.  So we are undertaking a really big task.  Yes, Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chair, two points.  One, I think we had some volunteers yesterday, including some observers on here who had sort of offered to help and you said you would take that under consideration, so I think at some stage if you could get a verdict on that, that would be helpful because we need many hands on this one, especially those who are passionate and are willing to do this and have responded to the question in great detail.  
 The second point, I just want to clarify because Parminder has laid out the steps and I had sort of put out a five-step process yesterday, I just want to make sure that we're clear there is a distinction because what was stated yesterday, with your permission I'll state that again, is remove the duplicates which has already been done, judge whether the issue falls under internet governance talk, enhanced cooperation, third, whether it's an issue that requires domestic treatment or needs to be dealt at a sort of global level.  Third is the WGEC plus classification which is proposed by the distinguished delegate from India, and the last was whether the existing processes exist or need to be strengthened or any other options that need to be discussed.  So if that is not -- is that what we are following or do we have a -- more edification of that?  I just want to be -- and I think the House sort of had a broad agreement, I suppose, on that.  Are we think anything different?  And the second point is -- the third point is, do we -- the working group can't go after all the issues at the same time.  Some sort of a prioritization might be required.  So perhaps the step six, which is in terms of timelines and prioritization on which of the issues that need addressing first and which can wait, I think that will need to be done.  You know, and we can talk more about why that is important now or later, but I think that is an important step, because we already have 100-odd issues, and even after filtering it there are lots of issues.  So I just wanted to place that.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat.  I'll start from the very end.  And I would like to encourage all stakeholders, including governments naturally, to participate in this exercise.  And the reason for that is very simple and very evident to me.  We are talking about enhanced cooperation and we are talking about the roles of government.  With other stakeholders probably if we are going to discuss it, government's participation is crucial.  That's why I suggest again that the governments would like to participate in this exercise.
 Now, as for the methodology or the steps you suggested, it's -- I think it's agreeable, probably within the group during the working process, you will find some adjustments.  I can't really imagine that from the outset you know exactly what you're going to do.  Probably it will be modified and probably some other ideas could be taken on board and you will find that some ideas you have suggested are not of that importance.  So that's how I see as for the timeline.  For me it's important that we have the kind of consolidated document for the next meeting.  How you prioritize it, naturally, it's coming from our mandate, that is enhanced cooperation.  So basically we have to concentrate on that, and it is my assessment from the meeting that the governments have concerns about their role in the Internet governance and enhanced cooperation.  So basically priority for me in this respect.
 Having said that, naturally all stakeholders are invited to (indiscernible).  Brazil, please.  Oh, Marilyn, you were first.  I'm sorry.  You're always first.

 >>MARILYN CADE: That's good.  You guys are looking at me for Thanksgiving, U.S. Thanksgiving holiday.  I think I may be in Hungary.  Thank you, Chair.  I wanted to build on trying to be very practical and pragmatic about how to use the mapping document and make it simpler, while maintaining its depth and richness.  I took a look this morning with the advice of some colleagues about the WGIG categories and I'm -- I think maybe you have them available.  I might ask you to read them out.  I was thinking one way we might think about simplifying this would be to put the -- and we could quickly do this as a small group of volunteers, kind of -- or we could do it after the fact, take the very long list of categories and put them, to the extent possible, under these four headings which I'm going to ask, if you don't mind, for you to read.  And then if we added just one or two other categories, we would have four to six big categories with subtopics underneath them.  And that, I think, would allow us to be much more effective in how we work.  So if I might, if you don't mind, Baher, if you could read them, I think you had them pulled up, and there are just four.  And then I have one final comment.

 >>BAHER ESMAT: Okay.  Yeah, there are four categories.  One, issues relating to infrastructure and management of critical Internet resources, including administration of the domain names, IP addresses, root server systems, technical standards, peering, telecommunication infrastructures.  Two, issues relating to the use of the Internet, including spam, network security, and cybercrime.  Three, issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact much wider than the Internet, such as intellectual property rights.  Four, issues relating to developmental aspects, in particular capacity building.

 >>MARILYN CADE: So I'm not -- you know, particularly I think we've got to keep the richness of the bullets that have been prepared by our team but I think we also need some headings because when we all go home, we have to introduce this document to folks that are not immersed in it.  And being able to say to them there are five to six major categories and here are the sum categories I think will be a much more effective way for us to be able to use the document.  And then, when we develop recommendations, we will need to be probably particularizing looking at the subpoints.  I'm not suggesting that we would make recommendations only on the main headings.  I do think we will need to make recommendations that are specific to the subpoints because the stage of evolution or activity will vary depending on the subpoint.  So that was my -- the first point I wanted to make, Chair.
 And then the second point I wanted to make goes back to, I thank Mr. Rushton for volunteering to be a coordinator/convener.  Sounded like Joy was volunteering to be a co-convener/coordinator.  And I think if there were -- it were possible to pass around here and then post to the WGEC list a sign-up sheet for those who want to volunteer to be in what I will call the mapping group, it -- that would be one step.  But I think we also ought to take a few minutes to meet, and maybe we could meet ad hoc at lunch, to kind of sort through what do we think -- how do we think this -- these procedures are going to -- going to work.  Because we're going to be widely distributed over the next 10 to 12 weeks and we could try to come up with an idea of how it might work and what the calendar might look like for us to be able to work together online.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn.  It's very useful, as always.  Just getting back to what Phil asked me about the timeline, probably it would be a good idea to set some kind of intermediate target dates in order to avoid some rush at the very end of the three-month period.  So probably it would be nice to have some kind of intermediate document around middle of January to know where we are, how we are doing.  And then have some kind of final draft for the meeting itself.  
 Before I give the floor to Phil, Brazil, you asked for the floor.

 >>BRAZIL: Thank you.  Very briefly, just to agree with the idea that the work of the group should be guided or should have a parameter of the five steps that were proposed, I think both by Parminder and by -- by Phil.  I think they have a lot of convergence and the core ideas are there.  And also to indicate the willingness of -- the interest of my delegation to participate in the group, to support the group, and to provide input also to that priority -- prioritizing of the issues in other areas.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil.  I think it's -- it's some example that should be followed.  Phil, you are recognized.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair.  Just to go back to the timeline issue that you raised and to give people something to ponder on before we meet later today, I would suggest a first draft -- first run-through of the process to have been completed by about the first week in January.  And to give people in this group time to review the great work that the correspondence group will do -- I sow that seed in your mind -- to have completed that by at least two weeks prior to your meeting.  So we will complete it by -- if we start on the 24th of February, we will complete the work by the 12th of February.  So with those --

 >> [ Speaker is off microphone. ]

 >>PHIL RUSHTON: Complete it by the 24th -- by the 12th of February.  That's two weeks.

 >> [ Speaker is off microphone. ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil.  I really appreciate it and I think that's a reasonable approach.  Saudi Arabia.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  What I was going to say is already captured by the distinguished ambassador from Brazil.  We are willing to work in this working group or correspondence group.  But as stated, the terms of reference or the parameters for this group has to be very clear set before this group starts.  Especially that there will be nowhere physical meetings that -- I mean, an agreement or a guided approach can be taken.  What has been stated by Parminder and Virat, that we have to put in this meeting for that correspondence group what are they going to do.  For example, as is stated, what are the priorities of these public policy issues or these issues or what is the (indiscernible) issues that has been dealt.  Maybe before that, is this a public policy issue or not, then what is the priorities of prioritizing these issues.  Then has it been dealt with or not.  Has it been adequately dealt or addressed or not.  And then to identify the gap in order to be able to see what kind of an action is required in establishing a mechanism or a mechanism needs to be established or enhanced, something in the -- in the existing mechanism.  But these parameters has to be set in this meeting, otherwise different views will come in the correspondence group through emails and it might be difficult to come up with a very consolidated outcome from this group.  And we have full confidence with Mr. Phil, and he has been chairing so many working parties and what's the good thing this time he will not have a (indiscernible) after having it online.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Majed.  We have already set out the terms of reference.  So probably the only thing we have to do is go back to the scripts and just formulate it.  Provided everybody feels comfortable with that.  Parminder.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I think that we need -- we really don't have much differences and I understand that there are two kinds of categorization that Avri mentioned and both can be accommodated, even in the existing Excel sheet.  There is one column which says "consolidated grouping" and that is by subject area which can follow whether it is a CIS (phonetic) group or whatever development issues, more or less that we get classification plus something else.  And the last column is status.  And we all know the status is important because that directly relates to our mandate of what has to be done.  And under status is the categories which I had mentioned which are about, you know, whether it is this, what has been done, what needs to be done, et cetera, et cetera.  So I think both columns exist to accommodate both kinds of categories in the existing Excel sheet.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder.  Sweden.

 >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman.  We think that it's good to build on the work that has already been done.  So the idea of categorizing these issues under the categories that were agreed by the Working Group On Internet Governance, the four categories, would be a good start.  Then we can see if there is a need for any additional categories.  But we think that it's important not to duplicate work too much and to build on what has already been issued.  
 When it comes to the working group or working party or whatever we want to call it, first of all, we would like to be part of that as well.  We would also like to say that we agree with those before us that said that it's important with the -- in terms of reference for this working group.  And we are not so sure that, for example, this working party will be able to prioritize between different public policy issues.  Because that could be an issue, I think that could be quite contentious, what do we think are important public policy issues.  That varies quite a lot, I think, from stakeholder to stakeholder.  So my suggestion is that the Secretariat would maybe draft a very short document on -- that describes terms of reference and then we could discuss that later, maybe here today, so that everyone feels truly comfortable with the terms of reference and what tasks we are giving this group.  I think for us, at least, that would be -- would give us much comfort.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden.  Let me make it clear that the correspondence group is in no way to replace the working group itself.  Probably takes its mandate from the working group, meaning as well that it doesn't take over the responsibilities of this working group.  So probably the -- as Sweden mentioned, the prioritizing is an issue for the working group itself.  So probably it would be too ambitious to give this task and responsibility to the correspondence group.  Having said that, they may come up with suggestions and proposals, but the decision will be within the group.  Joy, you wanted to take the floor.

 >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I just wanted to support the tenor of the conversations and points and to make two points.  One is about the proposed categories.  I do have some strong concerns about limiting ourselves to the WGIG categories, being the clear mandate to this working group is to consider (indiscernible) and I fear that by limiting ourselves to the WGIG categories we will not adequately capture the need and many blossoming issues that are affected in the submissions that we get.  So I would suggest that we continue to think about the categories, and I note, for example, that some submissions had categories in them, the Big Bits submission, for example, with a range of different categories for these public policy issues which perhaps with the opportunity to reflect back to this working group might be useful.  So I would ask (indiscernible) when we go to work on this task be given some flexibility in that regard.
 With specific regard to I would just make -- I agree with the point made about some terms of reference for the task, but I think rather than being focused on the activities, it be focused on the output, what is it that as a working group we need this task to bring back to us.  I think that would be very productive in the limited time available.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy.  Virat, you want to take the floor.

 >> [ Speaker is off microphone. ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Oh,U.S.  Sorry.  You're in the Switzerland's shadow.

 >>UNITED STATES: We're happy to be in the shadow of the Swiss mountains.  Thank you, Chairman.
 [ Speaker is off microphone. ]

 >>UNITED STATES: We certainly want to state clearly our support for this mapping effort, and of course we'll be involved and supply what we can.  And we want to be in that position because we think we really need this.  We said yesterday, it's true today, we think that we need to know where we are to figure out where we're going.  
 Chairman, for us, this mapping exercise will create a record, if you will, of information that will then be very helpful for us, we hope, to deal with priority issues.  And we know that our -- some priority issues will be difficult.  But in any event, this mapping exercise should -- should support the effort of this group.  We very much appreciate your clarification, but this map -- this mapping group that's going on certainly isn't going to replace the deliberations of this group so that they hopefully will be bringing back all of this excellent information and then convening as a group again and hopefully making progress on what some have called the priority interest.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, U.S.  And thank you, Switzerland.  Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, two quick clarifications, since I had mentioned WGIG yesterday I think to the point that the distinguished delegate from India has made yesterday, but this morning I did sort of improve on that by suggesting WGIG+ categories.  So I agree with Joy that, you know, that session of yesterday we had, I think, conclude on this morning may not have been noticed in that fashion.  But I agree with the point that she's making and I think we -- most of us agree on that.
 The second was the point that was made from the distinguished delegate from Sweden and then referred to by the U.S. about prioritization.  When I mentioned that as a six-step prioritization, it wasn't for the working party, it was really for the group to look at after the results come in and what kind of work this group can look at as a whole because really that decision should rest where everybody is involved in a bigger discussion.  So I just wanted to clarify those two points.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  Well, after this discussion -- I haven't finished yet.  After this discussion I will ask the Secretariat to draft the terms of references and bring it back to the group.  And probably after finalizing the terms of references the group may start having informal consultations during lunchtime -- I'm sorry to dispose of your during lunchtime.  You have heard it.  So I think this is the way forward, and I am happy that many governments would like to participate and I would encourage all governments who are present and who have interest to participate in this work because I think it contributes very much to the work of this working group.  Brazil.

 >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I think the point I was going to make was already captured in your last speech.  So I just wanted to follow-up on what Saudi Arabia and Sweden have indicated, that it would leave us more comfort if we could have clarity on these terms of reference.  And as we listen to the remote participants, Joy, it is clear, for example, that in regard to categories there might be different ideas if we do not spell out clearly.  And I take the point that there is a richness in the debate and that might develop ideas or improve categories, but this would, I think, lead us to lose a lot of time in this working group, this working party around, let's say, conceptual ways, so I think if we can come out of this meeting with a very clear terms of reference, as you have indicated, I think this will assist the working party and have very efficient work in such a short time frame, I think it would be -- it will assist us in the process.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil.  
 India.

 >>INDIA:   Thank you, Chair.  Two quick points.  Firstly, we also wish to convey our strong confidence in Phil, and I'm sure -- and also to express that we would be very much happy to assist in any manner as a delegation.  
 And the second, this eminent suggestion that we have to take as the categories should be WGIG+ because otherwise we could be accused of still having a 2004 mind-set rather than a 2014 mind-set, I think.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, India.  
 Mexico?

 >>MEXICO:   Thank you, Chair.  Just to support what the ambassador from Brazil said, it is very important to leave this room with a clear mandate for this other group and especially for our experts back in capital so they have a clear idea what the work will be and how to proceed.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  Marilyn, then Parminder.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Let me see.  Since I was one of the people who talked about WGIG+ plus, let me see if I can clarify what I was meaning.  I think we should drop after we finish this discussion any reference to WGIG+ plus and just talk about having a short list of headings which we work under and so we would no longer refer to them as WGIG.  To respond to your comment, we wouldn't say WGIG+ in the future, we would just call them the agreed headings or something.  
 But I was just proposing we use the substance.  And I think that's also what Virat was suggesting and Baher and others.  So in the future, we wouldn't go out of here saying WGIG+, we would say consolidated headings with subpoints.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   So probably we can come up with WGEC categories.  So we start a new era.
 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Parminder.  

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   I agree with Marilyn.  And I think in my understanding there is already a resolution, and I will try to give my perception of it as the secretariat settles down to frame -- draft the framework of reference, terms of reference.  
 We have a category of consolidated grouping which is what Marilyn is talking about, which was referred to as WGIG+, is now the grouping which is substantive grouping.  
 The next column is "current activities and approaches."  Who wants to try to write what does that mean?  
 The last is status.  And the status grouping is different from the substantive groupings which are by areas.  And I think the status is still needed as the reference point for going forward in our discussion.  So I think in this matrix, I understand everything which has been said.  Seems to be accommodated.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Avri.  Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on it.  I would like to support those who are suggesting that there be a wider set of WGEC categories.  And I would actually like us to empower the group to basically work on that set of categories and then come back to the larger group with an indication of those categories.  I think that in the discussion of issues item by item, being constrained to a short set that is determined a priori, could make the task much more difficult.
 So I would like to support those who have recommended, I believe India and others that have recommended the open set to be used.
 I also would like to sort of indicate that while, I think, this will be of great and indispensable use for us in finalizing any set of recommendations, I also think the work will be very valuable and an outcome from our larger group to the general ways forward for Internet governance.
 So I think the work should be seen in a larger light of more than just a tool for us, that I would like to suggest that it would be one of our outcomes.  Finally, I'd also like to suggest that assuming that this working party will be working in the interim on some schedule and in some manner that they basically give the whole WGEC list -- I have trouble pronouncing it.  It sounds like so many other things when people say it.  I'm not sure what we're saying.  So I'm sticking to the W-G-E-C.  
 I would like to suggest that they give the list of us, the entire group, periodic updates on where they've gotten and how it's going so that we can all keep track of it and anybody that feels their viewpoints are not being represented because they haven't been participating in the smaller group have the opportunity to then jump in somehow and add their voice.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Avri.  I'm absolutely sure that you will be part of the correspondence group, and naturally you are on the working group.
 Now, what is -- I can see no -- no one asking for the floor.  So can I conclude that we agreed on the establishment of this correspondence group?  We kind of agreed on the draft -- on the rough terms of references.  I would like to ask Phil and those who proposed terms of references to work closely with the secretariat during the coffee break finalizing the terms of references.  
 And if you have no other issues on the correspondence group, I think this is a well-deserved coffee break now.
 And I propose to have it limited to 20 minutes.  After 20 minutes, we come back and hopefully we can discuss the terms of references for the correspondence group and eventually we can also finalize the timeline for the work.  Thank you.
 [ Break ]
 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Good afternoon.  Can I ask you to take your seats, please.  Good afternoon.  Before we start discussing the terms of reference for the corresponding groups, group of -- our working group, let me get back to the date of the next meeting.
 I had an update from the ITU working group -- council working group's schedule.  And it seems to me that the 24th -- the week starting from the 24th is an appropriate time for us to do our third meeting.
 I know that most of you would like to have a four-day -- or some of you would like to have a four-day meeting.  I still have a preference for the five-day meeting.  So let me propose the 24th -- the week the 24th through the 28th.  And I will ask the secretariat to check the availability of rooms here in the U.N.
 I am updated that the request has already been placed.  A decision will be made as far as the availability of rooms here in mid December.  But I hope this is agreeable to all of us.
 No, it's a room.  It is an internal problem.  We shall have our meeting.  I don't know in which room.  Hopefully in this room.  I believe it's a relatively good setting.
 So let's get back to the terms of reference for the correspondence group of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.
 Phil, can you tell us what are the proposed terms of references?

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   Thank you, Chair.  Good afternoon.  The terms of reference of the correspondence group is available in paper form at the front of the room if you have not already seen it.
 Now that we've agreed to terms of reference, Chairman --
 [ Laughter ]
 [ Silence ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I'm really pleased to see that everybody's for the paperless work.  Having said that, electronic copies have been sent out as well so in case you want to fall back to the good old electronic form, then you're welcome.
 Please continue.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   Thank you, Chair.  So you have before you a draft set of terms of reference which I will walk through.  I already have some comments and some amendments, so there will be a revised version.  But I think if we can capture those as we go along, that will be useful.
 So starting at Number 1, which is always a very good place to start:  The correspondence group will work electronically.  If necessary, conference calls will be held; but it is my intention that the main method of working will be e-mails.
 Two:  The correspondence group is open to all stakeholders, as you indicated in your initial presentation this morning, Chair.
 Three, the correspondence group will provide three update reports to the WGEC Chair and mailing list.  Those will be at the end of November, this year; the beginning of January 2014; and the end of January 2014.  Again, I think that was a request made by a participant in this meeting earlier this morning.
 The correspondence group will provide an initial output in the first week of January 2014 and a final document for consideration by this group by the 12th of February, 2014.  That then gives you 12 days, Chair, and for our colleagues here to review, comment, criticize, rewrite or do what they wish to do to the document.
 The correspondence group will review the identified public policy issues into the WGEC list.  We created this WGEC list just before coffee.
 I would say -- and just to make it clear, that the identified public policy issues comes from the revised spreadsheet that has been created and distributed here today.  So that would be our starting point.
 B:  The correspondence group will identify where there are activities associated with the issues in that list.  
 It will also identify, if possible, the status of mechanisms and any limitations therein to the mechanisms.  
 It will also attempt to identify the gaps in order to ascertain what type of action is/may be required.  
 The point being there for C and D, Chair, as you will see from point 6, is that we will attempt to do these activities as input into your meeting in February.  
 However, where the issue cannot reach consensus, it will be referred to the -- that issue will be referred back to this group.  And I should make it clear, and have one amendment there, that what will be referred back will be the various positions taken on the correspondence group.
 So if there are five views expressed, you will get five options, Chair.
 You're more than welcome, sir.
 The correspondence group -- and I wish to make this explicitly clear -- does not replace the WGEC.  We are there to be a tool of the WGEC and nothing more.  And just to make it formal, Chair, we say that these have been agreed by your group as of this date so that there are no misunderstandings.
 I, therefore, put forward these terms of reference for your approval and the approval of colleagues with the two amendments that I have suggested, the one saying that the identified public policy issues in 5A is the spreadsheet that has been developed in this group and that any issue that is not reached among consensus will have the options referred back to the working group.
 So with those two amendments, Chair, I offer you the document.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Phil and secretariat.  It was a good job.
 Any comments, observations, remarks?  
 Parminder.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   While I think the list is really exhaustive and we really don't need to kind of address issues, therefore, it may not be completely completely complete.  However, if there are real -- somebody really has a pressing need to put any issue on it that wasn't before -- but that's not what I'm intending to do because somebody referred -- and I think Avri did -- that it could also be a substantive outcome in some way from the group.  
 And, therefore, the public policy list should not be frozen in any manner.  Though, I would greatly advise we don't add too many to it.  
 I was not really sure with Phil's amendment whether the amendment, whether the amendment one referred to this kind of thing or it could be the identified public policy issues.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Yes, Phil?

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   Thank you, Chair.  The issue becomes if somebody comes to this correspondence group with a new issue, it will not be the correspondence group that decides to add that issue.  That must be your group.  That is your responsibility, Chair.  I'm sorry to say.  
 We will only work with the list.  We are a tool of this group.  Therefore, if somebody has an issue that is burning a hole in their pocket that they wish to have added to the list of issues that will be considered by the correspondence group, it needs the approval of your group.  We are a closed user group in the sense you are giving us a task to work to.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Phil.  That's exactly how I think.
 Sweden.

 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chair.  First of all, thanks to Phil for working this out.  This is very useful.  And I think by large we could go along with these terms of reference.  Just a minor, minor issue, I think in para 5C talking about identifying, if possible, the status of mechanisms and any limitations therein, we might put different things into the word "mechanism."  So we are wondering if we could expand that a little bit to "fora" and "processes."  That's just a minor comment.  But, otherwise, we feel confident with these terms of reference.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Sweden.
 Is my understanding correct that under "mechanism," we may understand as well the different fora?
 Yes, Phil.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   If the meeting is agreeable, Chair, I will make that amendment.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Okay.
 Ellen?

 >> ELLEN BLACKLER:  I would support that and add it would also include activities, those kinds of things that business is doing to fill some of the gaps that aren't really a fora.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Yes, U.S.  U.S.

 >>UNITED STATES:   Thank you, Chairman.  Just a question.  Where we say the status of mechanisms, how should we read the word "status"?

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I understand it -- Phil, please.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   My understanding, if I perhaps can offer an opinion, would be -- it would be a narrative describing the activities, the fora, the processes, and the mechanisms associated with any given issue in that list.  So it would be as comprehensive as we could make it.  I would look to make it, as I say, descriptive rather than judgmental.  That would be for the process to be taken here.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Phil.
 For me, Number 7 is the bottom line; that is, the correspondence group does not replace the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.  So we have a clear idea about the terms of references.  I think it's mostly acceptable.  
 And I can see you, Parminder.  I can see you.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Saudi Arabia raised the fact earlier but since I'm responding to Phil's point, can I go ahead?

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Yeah.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  
 There was a discussion earlier about the status being what.  And I tried to describe certain elements of it.  And I don't think it is a narrative thing.  It is a category thing and categories being passed to the WGEC list as well.  And I remember there was a lot of support that we need to convert the issues to the requirements of what needs to be done and, therefore, we were categorizing into like:  The orphan issues being met but not adequately being met, some institution is fully dealing with it.  That kind of categories were the status.  And it could be inclusive -- stakeholders' participation inclusive of all governments' participation.  There are processes globally which are public policy bodies that are not inclusive of all governments.  And there are processes which are not inclusive of stakeholders.
 So the status is to find out what those mechanisms look like with reference to what then needs to be done which is the mandate of the working group.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Parminder.
 Saudi Arabia.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And I would like to thank Phil for this draft of terms of reference.
 To make it very easy to me, I'm trying to imagine that I'm now part of this working group and I have these terms of reference and I would see if it is clear to go with these terms of reference.
 I heard that -- I mean, I understand that there is no possibility to add in the correspondence group any more issues.  But, for example, what do we mean exactly by "review and identify the public policy issues in the WGEC list."  What exactly -- reviewing in terms of what?  I mean, is that -- I mean, we need to be clear when we say "review and identify the public policy," are we going to do an exercise in regards to these lists?  Are we going to combine them?  I mean, we need to clarify this and then we say "identify where there are activities associated with the issues in the list."
 Okay.  We don't want to say, okay, there is and there is not.  I mean, it has to be said also if these activities associated with adequately addressing these issues.  I mean, it's not like a matter of answering yes or no, especially -- I'm trying to raise this not to involve in this discussion in the correspondence group.
 In regards to the "identify, if possible, the status of mechanisms and any limitation therein," I think the idea is to identify, okay, the status of the mechanisms, if it is adequately addressing or not and if there is actually global arrangements to address this issue.  It has to be there.  I mean, is there global arrangements?  Is there a mechanism existing to address this issue?  This group has to identify this thing.
 I would start here.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  I really want in the future interventions to hear the text, not the criticism, but text you suggest to be included or to exclude.  I think we are past the time to give statements.
 Phil.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   Thank you, Chair.  Just to clarify my comment earlier, in respect to the distinguished delegate from Saudi Arabia, I didn't say that issues could not be added to the list but if issues are to be added to the list, then it has to be agreed by your committee, Chair, not by the correspondence group.  
 I take note of the comments and clarifications sought on 5B and 5C and would take guidance from this group as to what text they would like to see there so that we could adequately capture the text.
 I have to say, Chair, that 5A, B, C and D was taken from the text that we're seeing on the screen and were the nice and wonderful words from the Saudi Arabian delegate.  So if I'm not captured that right, I do apologize.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Phil.
 Joy.

 >>JOY LIDDICOAT:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Thank you very much, Phil, for your good work.  I just have three brief points.  The first is in relation to point Number 2 of the terms of reference.  The word "stakeholders" there, I take it this includes not only stakeholder members of the working group but also observers?  I would just like clarification.
 Secondly, I'm a little troubled by the words in para 5D in relation to what type of action may be required.  I think the word action could cause difficulties.  I'm thinking, for example, of the United Nations Human Rights Council which is dealing with a number of public policy issues that have intimate related components.  And I would find it difficult to imagine this working group might suggest action in relation to any gaps in the Council's mandates.  I think it is a suggestion that this working group might focus on that, that there would be some serious concerns with it.
 My suggestion is that instead of "action," instead of the use of the word "action" there, we might say "recommendations" so that we focus on what recommendations this working group might want.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Joy.
 As 4.2, "stakeholder" means what it means in the sense of what we mean by it in this working group and what we meant by it when we sent out the questionnaire.
 As for your remark concerning "action," I fully agree with that.  It probably should eventually be changed to "recommendations" or fully left out for consideration by the working group itself because the working group is tasked to give the recommendations.  But I leave it up to you.
 Next on the list.  Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you, Chair.  Actually my question -- I guess that was -- that's the point that is exactly why I took the microphone.  I wanted to ask.  
 As I understood this, this is preliminary and preparatory work and the drafting of recommendations would come after we've concluded this work and would come from the body as a whole.
 So I guess I'm -- I might just modify D to say "attempt to identify gaps in order to ascertain what might be required" without -- because it could be an action but I think the drafting of recommendations is going to be done in the body as a whole.  And I would prefer that the mapping group not start actually getting into drafting recommendations.  I think we actually have quite a bit to discuss.
 And that takes me to an example.  When I heard our colleague from Saudi Arabia and also Parminder, I was thinking about under B -- 5B, the mapping group would be talking about activities associated with the issues, looking first to the contribution submissions that have been made but then also based on the participations in the mapping group adding additional documented -- and I would think we need to do that.
 So if we're looking at the submissions, then everyone has the validation of what's been suggested.  But if we are going to -- and I think we need to -- add -- potentially using additional information, what additional activities, we should in the mapping group sort of document where we got that information.
 So I'm going to use a specific example that was mentioned yesterday.  The European Internet Observatory, which is still under development, is an emerging clearinghouse.  And it will gather -- so if we were to add that as an emerging activity, I would expect to sort of document where the further information about that could be found.
 That then let's us continue to build our own shared understanding of the activities that are going on.  We are, as the mapping group, I think, to Parminder's point, then going to be discussing about how satisfied we are in order to move on to D.  And that will be a gap analysis which I think, again, we're going to have to document.  And to Phil's point, we may end up with different documented options that get put forward to the group.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Marilyn.  I really would like to concentrate on the text we have in front of us and to try to finalize it.  Probably when we clarify the responsibilities for the group and for the correspondence group and for the working group, we have already made a great step towards finalizing these terms of references.
 Phil, would you like to answer?

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   Thank you, Chair.  
 Certainly under A we should put the fact and clarify the fact that additional issues to be added would require the agreement of your group, as we have said.
 For 5D, the point about what type of actions may be required, the point is well made by delegates.  I would say "attempt to identify the gaps in order for recommendations to be drafted by the WGEC" to make it very clear that we are just identifying the gaps.
 As we keep saying, Number 7 is the bottom line.  We do not replace the WGEC.  So I think these points are well made.
 The point as to -- in 5B identify where there are activities, I would say we should cite the source and, indeed, would provide text at the end of B to say "associated with" -- start again, "associated with the issues in the list and cite the source for such identification."  Not the best English, I apologize.  But I think it does the job.  
 So there are some changes to 5A, B, C and D that have been identified.
 And, of course, Chair, it is also important to realize that we only have three months to do this work, failure to complete the work of the correspondence group will necessitate a five-day meeting in February because we will have to complete some of the work of the correspondence group in your meeting.
 However, I will endeavor with my colleague Joy from New Zealand to ensure that that is not the case.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Let me remind you that there's a weekend preceding our meeting in February and there is a weekend after the meeting.
 Yes, Phil?

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   I shall seek permission from my wife to attend.
 [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   So do I.
 [ Laughter ]
 Sweden, please.

 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chair.  Very briefly, we can go along with the terms of reference as amended.  And, I mean, if we would like to add some additional comfort, maybe we could add to para 7 something along the lines that would not replace the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and will not take any decisions pertaining to the mandate of the working group or something like that, if there is such need.  I'm not sure there is such a need.
 Also just to answer very briefly to the comment mentioned, brought up -- the issue brought up by a colleague from Saudi Arabia, I think when it comes to the mapping, we feel that that should be a very factual thing, factual mapping of where are processes and where are issues are discussed, what are the issues and where are they discussed.  
 But when it comes to the more sort of evaluation of this, the value judgment on whether or not one particular issue is adequately addressed, we think that that is better handled by the group itself as well as the priorities as we mentioned earlier.
 So that's our view.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden.  It is my understanding that there's a kind of general agreement with the amendments on the terms of reference.  
 I still have Joy.  
 Virat, you want to take the floor?

 >>JOY LIDDICOAT: I --

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: My points have already been addressed.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay.  So, Joy, please.

 >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Just to say that my points have been dealt with.  The only one, I just didn't hear a clear statement that (indiscernible) my volunteer to assist which seems unfeasible given the size of the task and the short time available.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Phil.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you.  I think, just to make it very clear, as you yourself has indicated, Chair, as with the questionnaire which went to all stakeholders so that this correspondence group is also open to all stakeholders.  That is my understanding.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  Saudi Arabia.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just heard that we can further delay the talking about the adequacy of addressing these issues and not in the correspondence group but in the meeting.  If this is the case, I think there is no need for this correspondence group.  Yesterday the respected ladies there did a wonderful job by doing this and they can continue by just doing and adding that what are the associated activities, if any, and there is no need to have a correspondence group if they are not going to tackle each of these policy issues and see if there is global arrangements to address them or not.  And if it's adequately addressing them or not by either to find the gaps and then do the required action as a correspondence group which will come to your meeting then it will come out as recommendations as the meeting agrees later on.  But if there is no task to go over this, I think we can just continue without a correspondence group.
 And before we approve this terms of reference, we -- if there is any amendments, we would like to see it in writing before we adopt this terms of reference.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia.  It is my understanding that the group will do its work in view of proposing to the working group recommendations or some -- some input for the recommendations.  So, in fact, it is going to be extremely useful for the -- for the working group itself.
 As for the amendments in the written form, probably it can be done very quickly.  But I think it has been made clear and there was -- I couldn't really hear many dissenting comments on the terms of references, so I had a feeling that we kind of agreed on these terms with the amendments.  Iran, please.

 >>IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'm seeking a point of clarification.  I heard that this correspondence group is open to all stakeholders out of these -- I mean this group, just wanted to hear it from you, since this correspondent group is a part of the WGEC I don't think it's necessary to open it to all the stakeholders.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Iran.  It was my idea to follow the way we have been working up until now, and I do intend to continue this way.  We had received inputs from all stakeholder groups, which seem to be very useful, and we have taken them on board to discuss them, so I can see no reason why we can't continue this way.  It made our work richer.  It made our deliberations more wider, so I think this is the way to go forward.  And I think most of the members of the group do agree to that.  India, please.

 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  I think I need to intervene.  I was not planning to intervene, but I think it is required, I think, to make a few points.  
 The first and the foremost is this working group has a diverse composition.  There are member states, there are representatives of the private sector, the civil society.  I think there are other groups, also.  Now, if we embark upon a part of reaching a particular decision or recommendation, it was -- it was useful to receive inputs.  I realize that during the first (indiscernible) if you want to call it.  But the challenge here is every time we put out a -- a questionnaire or a set of issues, and if you want to go to the larger stakeholder process approach, we have no difficulties.  But then we only have representatives in this working group precisely for this reason.  And if they wish to go in their own individual capacity, let's say the private sector wish to go within themselves, they could further disseminate among their members and collect inputs but there are representatives to this working group.  The purpose will be defeated if we every time -- and we cannot embark on this process every time, and the end result would be another 500 pages a compilation and then do what?  I'm sorry to pose these very direct questions, but we need to have some brevity in what we are doing.  And you rightly observed that we know the issues.  We know the issues, and we are now trying to do a mapping exercise.  I think it's no harm if we could define that the respective groups could in turn, in their own right, because there are representatives of that particular group of the stakeholders, could collect inputs and give it to the correspondence group.  That would be an easy approach, rather than the correspondence group reaching out to all stakeholders and coming up with the bulk of information which we do not know where to head thereafter.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can I have some text for -- to support your proposal?

 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  The correspondence -- the correspondence group will be open to the members of the working group.  In fact, we don't need one to -- we don't actually meant for the working group.  It's a correspondence group of the working group.  Which is required to -- which internally -- I mean, in its capacity they could seek other members' views.  They're most welcome to do it.  But within themselves, they reach certain conclusions or certain observations which is brought to the larger group.  Thank you, sir.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  Brazil.

 >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I think this is very important for us to have a very clear understanding of what this correspondence group is aimed to achieve.  I don't see the work coming from this correspondence group as having, let's say, the kind of more political nature of or policy stated that is expected from this working group as a whole.  I see the output of the correspondence group as a technical instrument, a tool for our work.  And personally -- and I have made a point previously that personally I'm not feeling entitled to participate because I lack the expertise to engage in some of the issues.  I think it is in our interest to have the best available expertise contributing to give out a very clear picture of where we stand with regard to each issue, what are the processes associated.  I would be a little bit concerned if we maybe restrict the ability of people to contribute because we may be lacking some kind of input that might be necessary.  And then, this will come up to the larger group and we will make the appropriate decisions as -- because we have the mandate, not the wider stakeholder community.  But I think if we can it would -- see this as an input for our work, and then, of course, as a working group we have a particular mandate and we have the composition agreed that we should do it.  I think maybe that could be a way out of -- of this.  Again, I think the composition of this working group, I'm not sure if we have among us as complete expertise to cover all the areas and come up with all the -- or what I said maybe the X-ray of the situation.  Then this will be an instrument for us as -- as the magical group to propose some kind of intervention.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil.  Andres.

 >>ANDRES PIAZZA: Yeah, thank you very much.  With regard to what the distinguished colleague of India was proposing, I guess I don't know which of the opinions of the rest of the group, the members of the group, but if we have that question was open to every stakeholder and we have observers that can be on site and also in the remote participation channels with access to the information available.  And also we -- the possibility of providing inputs.  And then we accept those observers to be able (indiscernible), for example, the mapping exercise and then the whole purpose of the working group and our -- of course, our philosophy should be -- should keep open.  And I understand what Brazil says regarding the goals of the correspondence group.  And to be honest, I would like to be -- I would prefer to have more clarity also regarding the goals of the correspondence group as well.  But I think we shouldn't go back to discussion if -- that -- if the working group should be open or not because I guess at least I have -- I haven't seen any reason why we should go back there.  We should have -- we already established that we want it to be open, right?  Or not.  I don't know.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  Jimson.

 >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, Chair.  While I've been ruminating, I made a point and I would like to propose this text, if possible.  With regard to item 2 of the terms of reference, the correspondence group is open to all WGEC stakeholders and accredited observers.  So this correspondence group is of the working group, as the distinguished delegate from India underlined, and Iran.  So this is what I would like to propose, the correspondence group is open to all WGEC stakeholders and accredited observers.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson.  Avri.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I'm unmuting myself, so apologies for the pause.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I want to speak with those who are discussing the correspondence group being open and very much open in the same way that these meetings have indeed been open.  And so I think it's very appropriate that we do that.  
 I also want to point out that one of the reasons I believe that we were doing this correspondence group is because we felt that this was very essential work, that it was work that was a continuation of the process that came out of the comments we received from the wider stakeholder group community, and that it was work that we did not want to put in line for this particular committee, this particular group, but wanted it to be done in parallel.  So I think it's very important that this group be able to do its work, to be able to reach out for the experience and other help that's needed.  We see how much the observers have already contributed to this effort.  We wouldn't be as close as we are now, I believe, without their incredible efforts, their overnight work, their over lunch work, and all of that.  So I think we have to recognize that and keep that, that in.
 And in terms of this group being able to make evaluations, I think any initial evaluations that they may make are an aid to our work but are something that we, as a group, would be able to take and discuss.  As Phil said in his discussion on all this, nothing they do is final.  Everything they do is recommendations to this group as to how to proceed further.  So I think any of the evaluation they make, whether it's on things like status, on things like adequacy of the mechanisms or the processes, I think we recognize that that is all work that we will need to review as a group and be able to modify and amend as necessary before taking this document forward.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri.  When we started the discussion about the participation of stakeholders the concern I heard was a very practical one from India and it was the eventual output -- the volume of the eventual output.  And for me, it's a very reasonable argument.  Probably we want to deal with documents which we can handle.
 Now, I'm turning to Phil, who has volunteered to this position.  Can you give us some assurance that the volume of the output will be of a size which is understandable by humans?

 >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair.  You do not ask for much.
 [ Laughter ]
 On a serious point, Chair, you want something by the 12th of February that is not an activity that we should treat lightly.  I can empathize with the distinguished delegate from India about the volume of work.  If we cast our minds back to the first meeting, a similar concern was expressed about the number of questionnaires that we would receive in response to making that open.  I think we received 70 questionnaires and that was manageable.  We have the public policy issues list that we started, we are going to go through and further categorize them against the WGEC list as opposed to the WGIG list -- somebody ought to change the acronyms.  I think that it will be manageable.  I do not anticipate people coming in with vast volumes of work.  I could be wrong, but I think people actually maybe will provide the information going forward according to the process.
 I think it is -- if there is a large volume of work as a result of opening this up, I think that will make your task and the task of this group more rich in terms of the information that it has in front of it.  And in that terms we will need five full days.  But I think it is -- we are duty-bound, given the mandate that we have from the U.N. General Assembly, to do as good a job as we possibly can.  And if that is volumes of information -- which I have to say I do not anticipate, given that we only have three months in which to gather this, so it's publication of, join our group, provide the information, collate the information -- it's not going to happen.  But I think we shouldn't put barriers in the way in order for people to contribute if they have a desire, a wish, or indeed the information to do so.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil.  Well, let's keep the discussion on the level of -- on practicalities, and we have an assurance from the practical approach and basically that is the concern we all have.  I didn't have any intervention concerning the kind of political considerations.  So I would like to stop the debate on the terms of references.  I'm really sorry for those who want to take the floor, but I think we have covered all issues, and the real issue is how we can move forward as a group ourselves.  And that is the main thing.
 We have a team to facilitate our work, our next meeting.  We have a promise that it will be a document which can be handled by us, which will have our work, and for me that is, you know -- so I would propose now for you to approve the modified terms of references as they are.  So Saudi Arabia wants to take the floor, please.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  As I said earlier, we want to see it in a text so we know exactly what are these terms of reference.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: So let me propose the following, we come back after lunch and the text will be available.  I propose a five-minute discussion on the text.  A very precise discussion.  If there -- if there are parts you don't like, you propose something else and we proceed.  But there's a general agreement here in the room, what I can feel, that there's a need for this group, for the correspondence group, there's a need for the exercise.  The exercise will result in proposals which we can take up on board and it will facilitate our work.  Is it agreeable?  Yes, Phil.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair.  I will sit down with the Secretariat and get the text amended.  We will circulate that to the mailing list rather than paper-based.  I will be back in this room 30 minutes prior to the start of your meeting, should anybody have any comments or questions, so that we can further amend or make the proposals to amend so that we can meet your five-minute deadline.  So I shall be back in here at half past 2:00 with people having any comments or questions.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil.  Last remark before we break, as I mentioned in the morning, I would like to proceed with the framework of our recommendations, so I would like from the proposal for the framework some text, and I would like to have some rudimentary recommendations for Group 4 and 5.  If there are members who would like to proceed in this way, I would like to have the text as well.  And in this spirit I wish you bon appetite and see you back at 3:00.
 [ Lunch Break ]
 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Good afternoon.  Thank you for taking your seats.  And I would like to thank you also for the hard work you did during lunchtime, those of you who have had discussions.  And I understand that there are -- there's a proposal for the mandate of the correspondence group.  I just want to remind you that before lunch break, we had a proposal which was amended.  And now I would like to see the final result of the consultations.
 Can I ask Phil?

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   Thank you, Chair.  Good afternoon.  Indeed the revised text, as we discussed this morning, was posted early in the lunch hour.  So I thank the secretariat for their support in that process.
 As I also said prior to lunch, I was in this room from half past 2:00 to take comments on the amended text, and I have received some amendments to that text.
 So I will read those out, if you will allow me, Chair.
 So under 5A, there is a word to be inserted.  And it says "now review the identified international public policy issues."  So the word "international" has been proposed to be inserted.
 There is alternate text to B.  It says -- excuse me.  Excuse me -- "list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list."  I will repeat again:  "List where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list."
 A proposal has been brought forward as an alternative to C, which is:  "Identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues."  So C would now read:  "Identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues."
 And then in D, again, insertion after the term "gaps," it would say "attempt to identify the gaps and required action in order to ascertain."  So the three words "and required action" have been proposed to be inserted, Chair.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Phil.  I have a general remark.  I don't really want to see anything in the terms of reference which is taking over from the mandate of this group.  The correspondence group is to have the work, not to replace, not to override the work of this working group.  So any action is within the mandate of this group.
 I can see Marilyn.  But I think, Parminder, you were first.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you.  Chair, I would have to see this rewritten, but I have an immediate concern about limiting our work to using the word "international" rather than "Internet."  I think our work is focused on Internet issues.  And I want to be careful that we don't find ourselves -- and I'm just going to use an example.  I think that some of the issues identified by those from civil society and others who were raising concerns from developing countries might -- if we're using "international," I think we may be missing the fact that we need to be -- in some cases, there will be a need to have a regional recognition of an issue that might be arising.
 So I would actually prefer that we use the word "Internet" rather than restricting it by using the word "international."

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Marilyn.
 Parminder.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  First, I would respond to Marilyn's proposal and I see the mention of enhanced cooperation in Tunis Agenda clearly refers to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.  And I think that is our mandate, and we should stick to our mandate.  Otherwise, we will go too diffuse and the idea is to see what are the gaps in international Internet-related public policies and, if there are gaps, what to do about it.
 The prior issue on which I wanted to comment was about the composition of the group.  I am for extending all kinds of outreaches to all levels and keeping it open.  And if you wish to go for another round of information seeking, I'm very happy to have that because it will be more focused information.
 My concern is that out of four, probably different in the new amended text, but more or less still I'm talking from the old text are the four activities or mandates of the group, three are evaluative.  They consist of making a judgment.
 Now, collection of information -- and this group being a repository or recipient of information from all quarters is one kind of activity and that should be and can be very open.  I'm not sure how a huge group would be taking evaluative judgments.
 And my concern is entirely practical, that it won't happen and we will be back in the group with a list without being able to close the gaps which I thought was the primary purpose of making a small group; that when we come back, there's more clarity about certain judgments around different gaps and then we can work quickly.  And if we are not able to assemble an effective group, we would not be able to do those evaluative functions.  And that's the concern, if we can separate information sourcing from the evaluative aspects of this group and organize the group in a manner which it is effective to do both the works properly.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   As I mentioned earlier, the mandate of the working group hasn't changed.  So in case we are thinking in terms much actions, recommendations or evaluations, it is within the mandate of the working group, not within the mandate of the correspondence group.  I just wanted to make it clear.  In case you have doubts, I will put it down in my report and probably we can be done with that.
 Brazil.

 >>BRAZIL:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  My intervention is more or less in the same sense of your last intervention.  I see the outcome of this correspondence group as being a factual document that will assist us as a working group to move ahead and provide and elaborate recommendations and make an analysis on this.  So I think this is important because the contributions that are expected from to be us, from an expanded group of stakeholders, I think, as I have said before, I think we benefit to have enough expertise and information coming from other parties.  
 But those contributions should not entail analysis or lengthy elaborations on the issues.  I think we are expecting also very factual information, very focus-oriented inputs.  I think this must be made clear.  Otherwise, we'll end up, the coordinator, with extensive pieces of paper from which he will have to pick what is relevant.  
 What is relevant here are the factual information, one that will allow us to have a clear view, an x-ray, but not an analysis of this.  As you have indicated, Mr. Chair, we are not expecting proposals of actions, recommendations, just this picture upon which this working group will work.  This is our understanding.  
 I think that might be the understanding of the room.  Otherwise, it should be specified because it will assist the working group in its preparation.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Brazil.  I strongly urge you to follow the wise advice from Brazil, and let's move forward.  We may spend half of the night here discussing words in the terms of references for the correspondence group, which is a technical group, and which you will provide input to us and it is up to us to evaluate, to give proposals to recommendations.
 India, please.

 >>INDIA:   Thank you, Chair.  And I wish to thank Phil for certain amendments which he proposed.  I think they're very valid amendments which have slightly made the task more focused, number one.
 Secondly, to look at what Marilyn was saying about "Internet," the way to fix this is we strictly go by what's said in the Tunis Agenda.  If we could add three words in 5A, "international public policy issues pertaining to Internet," I think that is what the text is actually.  So then they were talking of Internet and again international public policy issues.
 And in any case, our objective is core towards such policies only and also to identify whether there is a role at the international level, not at the national level, because the task of this group is to look at that particular dimension.
 And the second one which is, again -- I don't want to open this discussion, but Jimson had made one very important amendment before our lunch break in para 2.  Are we looking at it or are we going to shelve that?  I just want to know that.  Of course, it is clear it is not reflected so it is not there.  But I thought that was a fairly good suggestion.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, India.
 Before we went to lunch, I really urged you, especially governments, to participate in the work of this correspondence group.  So I rather concentrate on these issues than on the particular words.  The sense of this correspondence group is to provide information to our group.  And if governments do participate, I think we have a good hope to come up with recommendations which are beneficial for the governments.
 I can see Sweden.

 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chairman.  Very briefly, we support what was said by the Brazilian ambassador.  We think this should be a very factual tool that we can continue to work on and base our work on.  And the only small comment that we have in that regard is that we think that it should not be within the mandate of this correspondence group to evaluate whether or not something has been adequately addressed or not addressed in a specific fora, process, or mechanism.  Otherwise, we are very thankful to the hard work that Phil has put into this and with contributions from all colleagues.  And we think we can work on this basis.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Sweden.
 Phil?  
 Saudi Arabia, you want to take the floor?  
 Virat after Phil, Japan, and United States.  And I would like to close the discussion because I think that we are very, very close and probably in the last two hours we should do some real work.  I'm really sorry to say that.  You have been doing a great job up to now.  The discussions were extremely good.  I really enjoy them.  And we are getting closer to it.
 But after deliberation of the terms of references, I would like to have some kind of framework for the recommendations on one hand and eventually if some members think that they could offer some recommendations, then I would like to see them.
 So, Phil, please.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   Thank you, Chair.  Just two comments, one to respond to the distinguished delegate from India.  I would like to claim credit for the words but, unfortunately, I cannot.  I'm merely the scribe.  The proposed changes came from my distinguished colleagues from Saudi Arabia in the 30 minutes I had set aside.  So if there is credit to be given to the terms used, please direct them to my colleagues from Saudi Arabia.
 The other issue -- and it goes back to something that you said, Chair, and to the Ambassador from Brazil which is in 13 weeks -- and I keep emphasizing 13 weeks -- there is going to be no effort to judge anything.  It is merely factual.  I do not have time to sit down and evaluate what I hope will be input.  And I hope you will reflect that in your minutes, Chair, that all I will do, along with colleagues who participate, is reflect back into your group the facts that we are given.  Where there is agreement on the facts, great.  Where there is no agreement on the facts, then alternate views as expressed on the correspondence group will be presented to this group to discuss and debate.  I do not intend to get into the middle of an argument.  That is not my intention, believe me.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Very grateful for that.  Thank you.  So you left me in the middle.
 [ Laughter ]
 Okay.  I can see United States and Japan and then probably we can close.

 >>UNITED STATES:   Thank you, Chairman.  Don't want to -- to take the time simply to come in to support your approach, to agree with those who see the correspondence -- the correspondence group as a fact-finding group, I think for the purposes, as was said, to have an x-ray of progress currently being made.  
 We agree with the comments that Sweden made.  There's no rendering of judgment by this correspondence group.  That is the purview, that is the work of this group.  
 So, thank you, Chairman.  We support the approach.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  Japan?

 >>JAPAN:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  We deeply appreciate the hard work to prepare the correspondence group.  And Japan would like to support the work of the correspondence group and would like to be a member of this correspondence group and cooperative work of the correspondence group.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Japan.  Very grateful for that, especially for the last part that you would like to be part of it.  I encourage again all governments to be part of it.
 Having said that, can I take the terms of reference as accepted by this group?  Thank you.
 Oh, Saudi Arabia, sorry.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  What exactly -- I mean, is it the way it's presented right now?  Because we have two Bs, two Cs.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I go back to Phil.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON:   That was going to be my question to you, Chair.  I presented amendments to --

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   In that case, we accept the amendments.  We clean up the text and we accept the amendments.
 Yes?

 >> VIRAT BHATIA:  Thank you, Chairman.  If we are accepting amendments, then 5D now requires the group to make -- suggest actions, which is -- that's the corrected text.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Yes, I understand.  Good point.

 >> VIRAT BHATIA:   Which is the job of the larger group.  This was debated extensively.  And the word "action" was dropped because it is a synonym for "recommendations" or "towards recommendations."

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Can you suggest text?

 >> VIRAT BHATIA:   We should keep the original text.  I just had one more point.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   As I indicated, it is in the mandate of this group to make recommendations, to make judgments, evaluations.  It's not in the mandate of the correspondence group, so there's no need according to the mandate of this group to delegate any of these actions.  It is us who are going to do it.
 Yes, please, continue.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:   The second point that I had is with regards to 5B where the word "identify" has been replaced with "list,"  I just want to clarify and understand that because if "list" means just putting the name of an association or a body, then that would be insufficient because for the larger group to be able to make a call on the substantive contributions of that group, then it can't be just listing.  It will have to be descriptive.  So if listing does not mean restricting a descriptive notion -- because the contribution and the progress can be identified only after reading a descriptive notion.  And if that's not on because it is the word "list" which is just reference to a name or an abbreviation, that, I believe, will be insufficient even for the group to get their document out to us.  So either we agree that "list" doesn't mean just the name or we go back to identifying we're okay with either one so long as we have an agreement and understanding.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.
 Saudi Arabia.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  But if there is -- I mean, if there is no meat or an output that will help us, why establish this group, if we are just going to have informative?  
 If we are only getting informative, it will be more appropriate, more balanced, especially with the Item 2 there, to do the same thing we did with the questionnaire.  We formulate these questions, send it as a questionnaire, get the replies, then the working group will decide.  
 But if you are going to have a correspondence group just for collecting information, why waste the time?  Just formulate it as questions, send it as a questionnaire.  And it will be more balanced that all stakeholders will be -- get the chance to reply and that's it.  And especially when I say if you're going to do the required action or a proposal.  So you are limiting me to just say, okay, there is a mechanism and I speak about that mechanism?  I cannot even say that mechanism is not appropriate?  That mechanism is not international mechanism?  That mechanism is not an intergovernmental mechanism?  
 I mean, you cannot just direct me to one corner and I just follow that based on the questions.  
 If the correspondence group is not going to do evaluative or to propose something, put them as a question, send them as a questionnaire, and save the time, I mean, for the correspondence group members.
 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  Nigeria.

 >>NIGERIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor.  I have to -- I shall thank you for the great job for the comments here.  Everything is (indiscernible).  They actually address so much what has been happening as part of the discourse.  
 So that effect, I would like to be included as a member among the correspondence group.  I want to be a part of the process to be helpful.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.
 So right now we have two Bs and two Cs, if I'm not mistaken.  Any proposal how to move forward?
 Yeah.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Based on Tunis Agenda and from there we get the enhanced cooperation, when we say "enhanced cooperation associated with framework or mechanisms," and that's based on Tunis Agenda, paragraph 60 -- I mean, either 68 or 69, so the most appropriate thing is to say "mechanisms or framework" because that's the thing that relates to the enhanced cooperation.  Existing activities, we can have so many existing activities but it is not in the code of the enhanced cooperation, international --

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Is "framework" acceptable to the group?  That's what you want, "mechanism and framework"?

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Tunis Agenda says "mechanisms" in paragraph 60, if I'm not mistaken.  Yes.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Okay.  The second B in blue.  There was a concern about the first list in point B in blue.  Can you clarify what you mean by list?  I think the proposal came from you.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Yes.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   So what do you mean by "list" with respect to the intervention of Virat?

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Because if we say "identify," it will be judgmental.  You identify something.  Should I agree with it or not?  But it's just to give me something that's already established, listed to me.  This is a corresponding group, okay.  We need answers in one line, two lines, one paragraph, not five pages to identify something that you see as an international mechanism or a framework.  It is either yes or no.  Is there a mechanism?  Yes.  Put the name of it.  That's why we said "list."

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Sweden?

 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you.  First of all, if you could indulge a little bit the text.  Unfortunately, my eyes are not so sharp.  
 Just to comment on the point made about analysis, analyze the material versus just mapping, I think it still has a lot of value to do the mapping.  And I think it's a big difference between mapping and what we need to do sorting different issues in different categories, for example, and identifying where, in which processes, in what mechanisms, so -- in what fora they're addressed and a questionnaire.
 I think the questionnaire, we have already done that; and it has been really useful.  We have connected in that way a broad range of views on this issues.  But I think the very nature of what we are trying to do now to move the work forward is quite different from what we can do with the questionnaire.  So we think it's a lot of added value.  
 And I've heard from a lot of colleagues here that actually doing this kind of mapping to have a good factual base to have a more informed discussion when we are going to move forward towards formulating recommendations has a lot of added value.
 So we don't really see the point made that this shouldn't be of any added value and that we should repeat the exercise that we have already done when it comes to the questionnaire.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden.  
 Andres.

 >>ANDRES PIAZZA: Thank you very much, Chair.  I guess the distinguished colleague of Sweden already took many of my points, so I want to agree with him.  And I want also to congratulate Phil and the rest of the group, too, for the progress made and also say that I want to be available for the corresponding group, too, in the next month.  So I want to be listed.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  I believe practically all the working group may volunteer.  I can see no problem about that.  So I just once again encourage you to do that.  Virat, please.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, on the point of listing versus identify, the notion that a one-line or two-line answer can be given, as has been suggested by the distinguished delegate of Saudi Arabia, the concern that we have with that is the following:  And I'll illustrate that with an example.  For example, if the discussion is about human rights and Internet and IGF was listed as a fora and it was just listed IGF, then that's actually leaving it to everybody's judgment on what IGF does.  On the other hand, when the group is doing the research and getting information, if there was a list that 18 sessions across the last nine years have occurred, including one main session, and so many participants have spoken, this is the kind of text available, we expect that to come up, when that is substantively different while making a judgment on whether the IGF is an effective international mechanism for enhanced cooperation where the issue of human rights and Internet is concerned.  And I think that's -- that's the kind of information that this group is looking for.  And I think that's the kind of information that will come, both from the filings that have already been made by the 60-plus participants and if you were to open this further, then others would substantiate it.  So the quality of work that will come in will obviously make it tedious for us to go through some more papers, but we will make a much better qualitative judgment based on the evidence that would be provided.  And that is the reason why I suppose it would help to be descriptive rather than one or two lines responses back.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat.  As you may know, I am also involved in the Radio Advisory Group of the ITU, I'm the vice chair, and as the vice chair I was chairing a correspondence group on the improvements of the VR, this is the Radiocommunication Bureau of Information Systems.  We have gone through a kind of similar debate about the mandate of the group and after they settled the issue of mandate there was a great enthusiasm from the members of the Radio Advisory Group to participate.  Can anyone tell me how many people participated out of 60-plus?  Three.  In addition to -- two in addition to myself.  But the bulk of the work had to be by me.  And I took all the blame, because you can't do a good job.  There's no way you can do a good job.  And those of you who are familiar with the ITU know that.  So please, don't insist because we are going to end up having poor Phil doing it on his own, and while I'm too pessimistic but I hope some of us will help him and some of us who made commitments will really contribute.  
 But I believe, let's stop now the discussion here, try to stick to some -- some of the formulation.  Believe me, it's almost irrelevant, at the end of the day, what we agree on here.  Because the work we are going to have is the more important one.  So I really ask you to approve whatever we have and let's move forward.  It is going to be a very useful thing for us as a group, and we will be very grateful to Phil and a few others who are going to contribute.  And I really hope there will be more than two, as was in my case.  Thank you.  Phil.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON: Just to save myself the embarrassment in February, Chair, unless there is input, I will do nothing.
 [ Laughter ]
 So it is up to others to contribute.  I'm sure that will not be the case.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay.  Brazil.

 >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I was not going to intervene but just to agree with one point that was raised by Saudi Arabia, that if the final outcome of the group would be thinking to identify, at least without any kind of judgment recommendation, that would be -- not would be in favor of that.  But if it is an intermediate step, as a tool to assist us in a second stage then to have -- to provide for analysis on this.  So I think the way you are proposing is just okay.
 There is one point of clarification I would like to ask you because in both of these refers to the status of mechanisms.  What is exactly meant by the status?  Is it -- I don't understand what is the concept of the status?  Is it something that is apparent to you, something that is -- what -- what is the criteria to judge the status?  I'd like to have some more clarity on this, please.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Valid question.  Before I give the floor to India, can the originators of this brilliant idea, this spreadsheet, clarify the status, meaning of the status.  Parminder, are you able to do that?

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Yeah.  After disclaiming brilliance, I can try to say what it was supposed to mean, and it was supposed to mean along with a (indiscernible) that was sent to the list which was about four or five lists, we will try to judge the mechanism like it is validity with the subject, it is (indiscernible) with the subject.  So there's a certain list which would be used and it has a proposed list.  Otherwise all kinds of judgments, and we can -- I think that work can be left to Phil to have four or five categories, which have been discussed since the morning, about what are we talking about, what kind of judgments we are putting on the mechanism.  Whether it is international, whether it is dealing with the subject entirely or partially, and that kind of categories.  But yes, it is a judgment, but we can keep it closed by giving four or five, six exhaustive options.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: It is my understanding that the group intends to have an intermediate -- intermediate report by the end of November, and most likely in January, and we'll have time to comment on that.  So basically if we are in disagreement with something, probably we can contribute the same way.  And it is also up to us what we accept and what we don't accept.  And we can allow the group to make mistakes.  I know that they are not allowed to, but still, I believe they will make mistakes, they will make errors, and we have to be very lenient.  India, please.  And I believe I would like you to be the last one.

 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  I thought Phil should be worrying about which,  we should take the blue or the black.  You have two choices.

 >> I prefer the blue.

 >>INDIA: You prefer the blue.  Okay. Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: But what is more important for me, the number of people contributing.  And don't forget that.  Can we go?  We delete the black and retain the blue.  Sweden?

 >>SWEDEN: Thank you.  Well, just to make clear, I think the blue is the one that is giving this group a mandate to evaluate its existing mechanisms, as it's phrased, or addressing the issues in the least.  So we would have preferred the black one, and I think that is what I have heard a lot from the room.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: I really understand your concerns, but believe me, it's of no significance.  I'm really sorry to say that we shall see from the number of contributions.  I may be too pessimistic as opposed to our assignment really because I'm generally an optimistic person, but from my experience I'm -- I believe that the main thing is -- just sets the working group -- the correspondence group and let it work.  Yes, Virat.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: Chairman, can we suggest a compromise where we can go with blue with the exception of listing to be clarified to be descriptive or support the point made by Sweden, sort of go through identify and then take away the required action.  That certainly is a -- is a problem.  So if you can take those two out, then we can go with blue, it can work.
 [ Speaker is off microphone. ]

 >> We took away "required action"?  Okay, fine.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: There's no action to be taken.  There's no "required action."

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: The only point left is --

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: So can you please reflect --
 [ Speaker is off microphone. ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Retain blue?  Okay.  Delete black.
 [ Speaker is off microphone. ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: The other way around? Virat --

 >>VIRAT BHATIA: There's one indication of I just -- I read this when you say, list the existing -- sorry, this is a bit difficult to read for me.  List what the existing international mechanisms addressing the list means, nearly half or more of the list that has been prepared and provided by the 60 or inputs are going to be wiped out of the discussion, if -- I mean, we should either say national/international or not have international because this means half the work that's been done, or maybe more than half of the work that has been done, could be wiped out.  Just a suggestion for the room to consider.  So I'm suggesting either international and national or remove international.
 [ Speaker is off microphone. ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: You want to take the floor?  Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE: I just want to mention to colleagues that that was why I intervened before.  We sent out a questionnaire with 18 questions in it and in good faith and we worked very hard on that questionnaire, as I recall.  I think some of you actually left me unsupervised for an hour or two until midnight or something, but we worked very hard on that questionnaire, as we all recall.  We sent it out and then we all worked in good faith to get people to fill it in.  And the people who filled it in, a large number of them, the majority of the responses came from governments.  I think there's a real problem if we restrict our analysis now in a way that will not take that input into account.  If we could go back to -- I share the concern that Virat Bhatia has raised that the word "list" could end up with just a narrow term that people wouldn't even understand.  If I listed APWG or MAAWG, M-A-A-W-G, most people in this room wouldn't know what that is but it's the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group which does a huge amount of work on spam and that would be relevant information.  So I'm hoping that we'll be flexible but not get multiple pages, just a short description.  But the thing I'm most concerned about in B is, whatever the word is, "list" existing mechanisms addressing Internet public policy.  I -- isn't that what we asked people to do, to respond to.  And how do we do the analysis if we do not include the kinds of mechanisms and framework -- I went back and looked at the Tunis Agenda and I believe it says frameworks or mechanisms, if required.  But let's say the concern here is we need to be able to include the scope of the questionnaire that we distributed.  It is really unfair to those people who we asked to contribute if we do not take their input into account.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  And it's also against our intentions.  Parminder and India.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I think we have a duty towards all people who have given inputs, but we also have a duty, which is quite friendly, to the UNGA which gave us a mandate.  The mandate is here, and we have to respond to the mandate.  It is good to work with a big broad based pyramid, but you have to go towards the tip which is the recommendations which are in accordance with the mandate.  And if you had to go towards the tip, we need to focus on our mandate which is very clear about enhanced cooperation which is defined as pertaining to international public policy issues.  That's what the mandate is.
 So now defeatists say that because there are responses of certain kinds we need to know -- our recommendation has to be based on that.  That's a good material for us to understand the issues, but we need to work on the mandate.  And the mandate is very clear, it's about international public policy issues.  I don't understand what we would be doing about talking about what, for example, India is doing on (indiscernible) diversity on the Internet within India.  That's not what we can put in our recommendations.  So we want to waste time of the group spending time talking again about those kind of issues when we are now supposed to be giving recommendations outside the mandate is my concern.  Therefore, the international public policy issues and international mechanisms is precisely now trying to get narrowed down to what we are supposed to respond to.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay.  India.

 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  I think we've been constantly compelled to make interventions but at one stage you are gaveled with talking about moving forward but again, it's a very fundamental issue.  Given the mandate of this group, I think we need to bear in mind that the way in which even the Tunis Agenda has evolved in Paris with 60, 61, they talked about an adequacy of mechanisms of frameworks for what?  For the international public policy issues.  Now, there could be a mechanism at the national level which is dealing with a possible international public policy issue, but that is not the relevance or the mandate of this group to identify.  We're looking at an international mechanism, if we -- quite possible in the middle of the discussion we may say well, it's already clear, that's a different story.  But at this point in time we need to look at those international mechanisms.  And that is the spirit with which we are all in this room.  So let's -- I have no problem in listing all that, but the only thing is you go further and we'll have a much larger database and then we'll have to sift through the same process, the process through which you're going and stick only to the international issues rather than the national issues.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, as a matter of fact, I do trust the correspondence group to make appropriate judgments whether it's relevant or not relevant, and I really trust them, since they are also members of this group, to come up with a final document which will be -- which we will be able to handle in the proper way.  And so I tell you, I don't really want to spend much time on that.  We are just going around and around and we are just postponing to do real work.  I'm really sorry to say that.  Phil.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair.  I'm sorry to prolong the agony.  But I am now, as one of the co-conveners, slightly confused.  I am told on the one hand I should make no judgment, there should be only factual information.  Now I am being asked to make a judgment on whether or not something is international or national.  I think the bottom line is, if the information comes in, I will put it into a form that is agreed to by the correspondence group and you, too, will have to share my pain, Chair.  I am sorry to say this.  I will buy you a nice cup of coffee afterwards.  But I will make no judgment.  This -- I reiterate for the fourth time, this correspondence group is merely a tool for the working group.  It is the working group's role, expertise, to make the judgments.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay.  I will ask you for the coffee a bit later.  Let me propose the following thing:  The output of this correspondence group will be a Chair's document and it will be my responsibility to take and make any judgment which I think is appropriate.  Is it acceptable?  Okay.
 [ Speaker is off microphone. ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: You want to take the floor, observer?  I have taken the decision over.

 >>MATTHEW SHEARS: If I may, Chair.  Matthew Shears of CDT.  Part of the mandate of this working group is to seek, compile, and review inputs.  If we're moving to a terms of reference -- and I apologize for prolonging this further but I do feel this has to be said -- if we're moving to a terms of reference that focuses on mechanisms, international mechanisms as some have inserted in here, rather than fora and other activities, we are effectively removing a considerable portion of the work that should be done as part of that review process.  And it is quite astonishing to me that we have 60 or so inputs to this process and now we're saying that most of those inputs actually don't meet some kind of new set of criteria.  They have not been reviewed.  Those issues should be reviewed, as a part of this process.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  Just let me repeat, I expect an output from the group which will be my document, and I will make the judgments.  Brazil.

 >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I -- as I see it, I think the -- this correspondence group is still not -- is fully consistent with the mandate we have.  I think actually in spelling out the questions we have been fully respectful of all input received.  I think we initially had this lengthy list of over 400 contributions, collecting all of the views from all participants on the relevant issues to be examined.  So what we are trying to do to organize our work to make it workable for us is to request for an input.  What is the input?  On the basis of these contributions we have, we want to have a document relating these to saying whether those issues that were identified by submissions that were obviously related to something that is theirs, who is doing what, I think this is something that we find -- we found as a group properly to have in order to move forward.  But this is, to my view, fully consistent with the fact that we are being respectful of the submissions that we have received and trying to relate to them.  But making it into a way that is workable for us, otherwise either we cannot make out the work that was mandated to this group.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil.  I will reflect the results of this discussion in my report, and I suggest we move forward.  We have two hours to go.  I closed -- I closed the debate.  I would like to move forward, and I would like to ask India if you have any proposal for the framework for our recommendations?

 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  At the outset I must say that I have not really been able to come up with a very serious framework, but something which I attempted which would -- would be in the form of what were the broad elements of the report rather than put together language at this stage.  So that is my -- this is based on the discussion that we had and the similar reports that have been produced by the working groups.  If you permit me, Chair, I just will highlight some of the elements of it rather than going into the specific details because it will be -- it would be quite unfair to draw a conclusion when we are not even started making serious assessments about various contributions that we have received.  
 With that admission, Chair, I think firstly, the way we look at this, we could have a kind of introduction to the report which would talk about the mandate that has been given to this working group by the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 67/195.  With a specific recommendation made -- or recommendations to be made on how to fully implement the mandate of the enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda and how we went about doing this process, the modis operandi which the working group has chosen and the meetings that have been set up and how we arrived at the questionnaire.  So this could be captured in the body of the report in the form of an introduction.  And of course, today's development which is talking about this -- talking about the correspondence group which has been tasked with a very sensitive assignment of -- I do not fully agree with saying it is not just reporting of what has been given but I think it's a very sensitive job of even to put together those ideas and presenting it as one particular input to the working group.  And based on -- the next part of the report could be looking at what is the broad approach that we want to take on this.  The group seems to have taken a clear recognition that there are a large number of issues above the Internet and also on the use of the Internet that affect most of the people who have access to it and also looked at areas where people who have no access to it and how to perhaps look at addressing those issues.
 Secondly, there are also issues which needed a holistic examination on the use of Internet because it -- one way or another it will touch upon the concept of enhanced cooperation.  So that would be the next element.  But we also have seen some acknowledgment in the room, at least some delegations have said that there are issues that are to be dealt with by existing mechanisms and then others who said that while there is still no home for some of the issues, that when they say issues they're talking about the international public policy issues pertaining to Internet, I think.
 Having made this broad position of what has been achieved and what are the gaps, we would then look at what are those relevant areas, relevant broad areas that the working group could look at as a possibility, again flowing out of the Tunis Agenda which is firstly talking about this identification of those international public policy issues pertaining to Internet which is an exercise the correspondence group would come up with which will perhaps could be part of this particular portion of the report.  And there are technical issues as well as issues relating to the oversight.  That would be in the range of the -- thereafter, I think the most would say assessment-based aspects will now have to come into the report before we actually go into the recommendations.  
 Now here, when you talk of assess -- prior to assessment we also need to look at the role of various stakeholders.  Now, this is where there seems to be some lack of convergence, if I can use the word.  The issue which is of whether what has been described in the Tunis Agenda of the relative roles, do they still remain intact or there has been certain cross -- cross, what do you say, movement of some of the responsibilities of the various stakeholders.  But I think it will not be inappropriate, at least to begin with, to use what is the language that's given in the Tunis Agenda, for example, with regard to the role of the governments and with regard to the role of private sector, the role of civil society, and the role of Internet -- governmental organizations.  And one thing we must certainly do is bring in the role of academic and technical communities which -- who have been left behind for God knows what reasons.  I think their contributions also need to be recognized and see what relative role they can also bring into the whole enhanced cooperation element.
 At the end of this -- I mean, here we need to -- again, in each of these, we could have a shepherd which -- initiating from what is given in the Tunis Agenda.  And if there are any changes, the group feels need to be added or to be made, and that is something -- that would be part of an assessment, frankly an assessment we'll have to make, given the views that are prevalent in the room.
 Then comes the next level which is the inputs that are going to be moving into the mechanisms or frameworks.  There are views about fora, the colleagues have said, or activities. 
 Now, this is where we need to be making perhaps a very close -- we will be taking a close look at this part of the report which would talk about the need for strengthening the existing mechanisms and at the same time talking about the need for having possible new mechanisms.
 And this is where the direct input we will get from the correspondence group which would have done a certain mapping of the existing -- of identified international public policy issues.  And then we have the mechanisms or frameworks which are existing.  And if they're not in the view of the group, then we need to perhaps touch upon that part in this part of the -- in this part of the report.
 And there's one more dimension which we might need to reflect, again, this is the relationship of whatever mechanisms which are existing or new ones, with the existing bodies, international bodies, which are dealing with international public policy issues.  Just to give an example, like WIPO.  There are issues which are already being dealt with by WIPO, similarly ITU, some aspects.  We could come up with this relationship of those existing mechanisms or the new ones with this new body -- with the already -- with the part of the United Nations system because they are already part of it.  And there is also already a big debate in the WIPO how to deal with issues relating to what has been transacted on the Internet.
 Toward the end, I think it will be very important for us also to look at -- I mean, this is one thing which I thought would be very relevant to look at the relationship with the IGF because as we made this process that we should have two processes which are complementing each other and working on a side-by-side basis.
 Of course, I did hear some views today that some believe that it is in itself part of the enhanced cooperation.  That's debatable.  But I think we need to, given the current mandate of the Tunis Agenda and the U.N. General Assembly resolutions, very clearly pointing out that these are two processes distinct and having certain complementarities which need to be further strengthened, in a sense.  It could be a very good relationship between the two processes.
 Broadly, I think -- the last issue which I think will be a final outcome of the correspondence group would have to come under the relevant roles which we are going to define.  The role of, let's say, a particular stakeholder and possible areas under which have been identified by the group, those could be either listed there or could be annexed to the report.  So that -- to keep the main body of the report relatively shorter and to have an annex which gives those areas which we have -- perhaps believe could be part of a particular stakeholder's direct response.
 Here comes the challenge.  There could be areas where they are cross-cutting, where everyone is involved.  We need to devise the mechanism of how to list those international public policy issues that we would like them to be looked at by a stakeholder or stakeholders.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, India.
 It's nice to hear one's own ideas back.  You are already writing my report, so I'm real grateful for that.
 I think there is great merit what you have said.  And probably what I suggest to you is taking from -- either you can provide the written form or we can take it from the transcript.  And I will ask the secretariat to start an initial rolling document in this sense which really makes sense.  And probably it's something which people can contribute and say, no, we want a different categorization, we want a different structure.  But we have to start somewhere.  And that's my main idea, that eventually we should come up with some kind of structure for our recommendations.  
 I fully agree that naturally we will have an introductory part.  We will have an analysis part.  We will have all the text which is needed for this report.
 But to have some kind of structure for the recommendations, it is really needed to think about how we are going to formulate.
 One idea I had was based on the document which was offered to you as a summary of the responses, which is strictly related to the inputs we had and which also reflect the mandate.  And it may be also an idea to reflect these categories what we had in the summary paper in the recommendations.  In the process of our work, we may find that eventually we should deviate or we should split some of the categories.  It may be that we shall merge some of the categories.  I still don't know.  It very much depends on you and on the way we are going to move forward.  
 I really thank you for your contributions.  And if you want to add, please do it.

 >>INDIA:   Thank you, Chair.  I was remiss on my part not to mention another important dimension which is relating to the developing countries of which I think there is -- some contributions are coming in.  And that would be a part of the report which will have to come perhaps just before conclusions, I guess, because it will also be drawing upon some of the recommendations that the group would be making on whether it is on the relative roles or whether it is on the mechanisms.  
 Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you.  Any comments on the intervention of India?
 Sweden, please.

 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chairman.  Thank you, first of all, I would like to thank India for this work.  I think it is really a good start.  Definitely something that we can work on.  We're looking forward to seeing it in written form, and then we will analyze that further.  And maybe we can work on a rolling document, as you said.
 I just want to make one thing clear from our perspective for the record, that when we're talking about "mechanisms" here, our interpretation of that is that it can be a process, it can be an organization, it can be a fora.
 So that is -- potentially, that's a list that could be expanded.  I think that's very important to make clear given both the mandate of the correspondence group and the structure that was proposed by India on the report.  But we are -- once again, would like to thank India for that.  And I think we can work further on that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Sweden.
 Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you, Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak.  I just wanted to mention that several of us put forward a document that was intended as food for thought and I believe is in many ways complementary to many of the recommendations just made by India.
 In that document, we try to reflect the reality with the Tunis Agenda as the starting point for all of our discussions but that it is also not the last word on Internet governance or the roles and responsibilities in an evolving Internet.  
 It takes into account and respects the many views that we have received to the questionnaire.  It appreciates the existing mechanisms respectful of the idea and the many organizations of the Internet technical community.
 And it attempts to avoid any top-down recommendations that would harm the organic international Internet processes that are ongoing and constantly evolving.
 So on behalf of those who contributed to the stake in the ground, I would like to ask the members of this community to consider our offerings as we move forward.  Thank you very much, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Avri.  I think your contribution has been circulated within the group to be taken into account.  And I would like to remind us all that we are all part of the process, which is the WSIS +10 process.
 So with this in mind, we have to pursue our work.  So we are going to contribute to this WSIS +10 process.
 I can see Jimson.

 >>JIMSON OLUFUYE:   Thank you, Distinguished Chair.  I want to really appreciate you for the way you have moderated thus far.
 I would like to speak to the proposal or the submission of distinguished representative from India.  
 Actually, I wanted to comment to talk about:  Have you left us out, the developing countries?  And then he came up again and talked about it.  
 So I think a bigger gap on enhanced cooperation is to focus in on what happens at developing nations.  That should be given a lot of recognition in the report.
 And, also, to agree with the distinguished delegates from Sweden with regard to what we mean by "mechanism" because there are a lot of processes that is ongoing that is also facilitating the process of building confidence with regard to formulating international policy pertaining to the growth of the Internet.
 And, lastly, there was a very important forum that took place here in Geneva that was May last year.  There was a lot of inputs in that forum, very rich because I read the script and everything.  So I think it also would be good if we make reference to that.  The correspondence group can have it, actually can look through it, can be part of the reference group because I can recall a lot of vital inputs in that discussion, the first discussion enabled by the CSTD.
 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Jimson.  I believe the document has been made available to the group.  It was the initial document -- one of the initial documents for the first meeting that was the transcript of the 2012 May meeting of this year, so open consultation the CSTD had in the ILO last -- not last May but May 2012.  So thank you.  It's well taken, but it has already been made available.  If you wish, we can resend it.
 Virat, you wanted to take the floor.  And then even though I told Brazil we are not going to have coffee, we are going to have coffee.

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:   Thank you, Chair.  I just wanted to come in and throw our weight behind the framework presented -- the early sketch of the framework presented by distinguished delegate from India.  I think we don't -- we perhaps don't realize the importance of this because otherwise this could take one of those four days.  And so if -- I think this is really excellent use of our time.  If this framework that has been stated in some ways can be structured and put together for comments, then it would be our -- it should be our endeavor to try and agree broadly or as closely as possible on at least the framework when we begin the four-day meeting.  
 You see I'm emphasizing again and again a "four-days" meeting in February because we all want to be back on Friday evening home.
 If we could try and do that, then I think it will help to have an effective Monday morning rather than spending half the day just arguing on the framework.  
 As the contributory groups work on their mapping exercise, the other larger group on e-mail can mail this as close to as possible.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Virat.  That was exactly the reason, I'm sorry to say, that pushed India to make public this vote and share with us because I want to save time.  And this is a very, very valuable contribution and it will save us a lot of time.
 And I just want to ask you, in case you have something electronic -- in electronic form, to submit it to the secretariat.  And, eventually, probably we can work offline to put out a document on the working group Web site and for consultation with the other members.
 And when we come back in February, we are very prepared and we know what we are going to do exactly.
 Having said that, I propose to have a 20-minute coffee break.  And after coffee break, I would like to ask the United States who submitted some contribution in form of a recommendation to propose to us.  And I would like to close our meeting, if possible, before 6:00.  Thank you.  So we will come back in 20 minutes time.
 Oh, Sweden, sorry.

 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you.  Just to say also together with Brazil, Mexico, U.K. and Sweden, we have also worked -- well, Sweden, (chuckles) we have also worked on some recommendations that we would like to present to the membership.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   You are more than welcome.
 [ Break ]
 [ Gavel ]

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.  Can I ask you to take your seats, please.  Thank you.  Right.
 So before we broke for coffee, we had a wonderful contribution from India for the framework.  And we were promised to have the electronic form in a short while, probably by Monday.  And I'm going to work with the secretariat to have the document out on the Web site in order you can have a look at that and comment.  Probably this is going to frame our work for the next meeting and will save a lot of time for us.
 The other thing I mentioned before the coffee break was that we had contributions from several participants, members, in form of recommendations.
 So who would like to start with the submissions, please raise your flag and let's try to finish before 6:00.
 I would like to emphasize that this is a draft.  We are going to consider it and probably we shall get back to the recommendations -- draft recommendations in our next meeting.  But probably this is offered by some of the members for your comments.
 I believe United States wanted to give the recommendations and eventually from the group of countries, Sweden or Brazil.  I'm not sure.
 Okay.  United States, please.

 >>UNITED STATES:   Sure.  Thank you, Chair.  In the spirit of the guidance that you provided earlier today about looking at possible draft recommendations that could be put forth, particularly in the discussion we had about looking at Group 4, perhaps to start, we put together something to offer for the process.
 Should I just read it?

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Yes, please.

 >>UNITED STATES:   Okay.  "International Internet organizations should continue to evolve to meet the needs and facilitate the participation of all stakeholders (including particularly those from developing countries) in their collaborative mechanisms and stakeholders from all groups are encouraged to engage in those Internet institutions to further realize the benefits of their participation.
 Where participation may be hampered by lack of awareness, educational opportunity, political priority or financial resources, the Internet governance community should endeavor to help find ways to enable such participation."
 Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, USA.  It is very helpful.  And as I mentioned to you, this is a draft and probably you consider it also as a draft.  And we have to start from somewhere.  And I'm really glad that at least we have some draft recommendations.
 Any comments?  You are not obliged to give comments, of course.  But if you feel like, raise your hand.  Brazil.

 >>BRAZIL:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  And I would like to thank the U.S. for this.
 Mr. Chair, I think this is language that captures much of what we have said.  And, of course, we would think that meaningful collaboration from this group should go beyond this and provide some more substance to those recommendations.  But I think this is -- this captures the framework in which we should work.  So I think it's valid that if we can come out of this meeting with some formulations upon which we can build, can try to insert more substance but will, let's say, already give us some direction, not start from zero.  
 In that same sense, we have been working with Sweden, and my colleague from Sweden will introduce the text.
 It is something which is not at all our ambition at this point in time.  We are not, of course, prejudging the outcome of the discussion we have but will provide for some sort of initial way to try to figure out how the recommendations made from this group could look.  I would like this to be seen in that light, not something that reflects something that is -- reflects our ambition.  It certainly does not.  But it is an initial step in that regard.
 And I thank the U.S. also for this.  I think it is very important that we initiate our next meeting with something already in writing to -- not to start from zero and lose time, even in trying to figure out how to go about it.  This is the purpose of this.  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Brazil.  That is exactly my thought when I asked the participants to contribute in this sense, to start the process of producing recommendations or just the beginning of recommendations.  It is also the most difficult part to start something.
 Parminder.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  And thanks to the U.S. delegation for starting off.  As the Chair says, it is a difficult thing to start off, and we have something we can build over it.  And building over it -- I'm going to a layer part, not that I have a problem with the process.  And we are into talking about recommendations about part 4 and 5.  I mean, the sense of certain discomfort about talking about this has not gone, and it is also exemplified with the present text on the screen.  That is not a part that something is more important than the other, but some set of questions are dependent on other sets of questions.  And as I now engage with this particular discussion, I again feel that 4 and 5 is so dependent on 2 and 3 that your mind is going to start making contributions not knowing we are trying to increase participation in what mechanisms, we are examining the role of developing countries in what.  
 And that comes back because I don't disagree with that part which is on the screen.  However, it's one part.  Existing international organizations who are doing work should be more inclusive and the reasons given are about awareness, finance, et cetera which, again, are an important set of work.  But a lot of people here earlier, yesterday, or perhaps the day before, said that one of the biggest reasons developing countries can't participate is because there are no mechanisms.  And that was repeated by a few people.  That's the big thing.  
 Now when we discuss -- having not discussed that big thing, you already are uncertain about the contributions you are making.  I mean, what is it you're talking about.  And if we speak about that, I mean, I would like to contribute that the biggest problem of developing countries' role is an absence of mechanism.  Then I'm probably discussing 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 which I should not do.  
 So that makes me unsure what should I do in this part because for me the biggest problem of participation is absence of international forums where all countries are on equal footing and they can start from the agenda onwards to the final outcomes be a part of the process.
 So I would think that for me is the biggest excluding factor.  And other factors are important, but they come later.  And I agree with those factors which have been put on the table.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Parminder.
 Ellen, please.  Oh, no, Jimson first.  Sorry, sorry.

 >>ELLEN BLACKLER:   I would just like to say in response that I had -- I have some of the same concerns, that it's difficult to do recommendations without having kind of this fact basis that we were looking for.  But maybe if we can have an opportunity to review things we come up with in this process in light of the facts again, we'll be able to make some progress, that it is not an either/or operation.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Just reflecting on that naturally, it's an iterative process and we are going to review and probably not once.
 So, yes, we take it on board and probably with the mind that we are going to have other inputs from the correspondence group.  We are going to clarify issues, what Parminder has raised.  And in the light of that, probably this will fit into whatever we are going to recommend.
 Now Jimson.

 >>JIMSON OLUFUYE:   Thank you, Chair.  Distinguished colleagues, I would like to also join us to appreciate the contributions thus far and in particular the recommendation coming from United States.
 Well, we know that the issue at hand is an ongoing work and there is nothing wrong for us to make progress as much as we can, even as much as we are within the bigger picture.
 Well, I want to say I agree with the proposals and I have one or two other propositions here, recommendations.  It's similar to what has been proposed, but maybe we can marry them down the line.
 The first one is that, that the ongoing inclusive national, regional, and international cooperation on matters pertaining to the Internet be sustained among all stakeholders with governments, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community actively playing their respective roles.
 Then the second one I would like to propose, that the mandate of the United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development be enhanced to coordinate international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in a collaborative, multistakeholder framework that include governments, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community on an equal footing.
 Thank you, Distinguished Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, Jimson.  I can see Phil -- oh, Sweden, sorry.  I'm sorry, Phil.  Sweden asked for the floor first.

 >>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chair.  I just also wanted to thank the United States and Jimson for those contributions.  I agree that it's a good starting point, and I think that's how we should see it.  And I think we all agree that what we have on the table now -- right now is only draft, and it's a way to move the work forward.
 And I think it's good that we work in parallel with the mapping and the drafting of recommendations.  So I would like to thank, again, those that made those contributions.  And after we have had the discussion on this, I'll come back with our joint recommendations.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden.  Phil.  No?  Okay.  Anyone asking for the floor, I just want to repeat, this is a draft.  We are going to revisit it in our next meeting.  This is something, just a beginning.  I can see Nigeria and Marilyn.  Nigeria, please.

 >>NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I would like to proffer this proposal to -- that international (indiscernible) is already addressing international public policy issues pertaining to Internet strategic awareness and capacity building programs particularly in developing countries and across all sectors, including governments, private sector organizations, civil society, technical and academic communities.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Nigeria.  Marilyn, please.

 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair.  I'd like to join with others who express appreciation for colleagues in the room who have already put forward some drafts for us to be thinking about.  I'm very impressed to have already some language and some good thinking.  But I wanted to ask, since I'm a bit slower in thinking, just to think about perhaps there would be a process for us to be able to not wait until our next meeting, but to be able to accept drafts of further recommendations and have a kind of a rolling single document for those -- a place where those would be aggregated so that we can not have to search through the mail list but, you know, have a place where we can find all of the drafts that are submitted as we go forward.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for the suggestion.  Probably we are going to do -- not probably.  We are going to do it.  Sorry.  It will be posted on the Web site.  And you will have opportunity to contribute, even in between the two sessions we are going to have.  Feel free to submit your proposals for recommendations, and it is most welcome and it will be reviewed, I think periodically, by all of us.  I expect you to go from time to time to the Web site and find out if there's something new.  But at the same time, probably we should establish a mechanism of kind of alert that there's something new.  So we shall work it out within the Secretariat.
 Saudi Arabia.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  It's good to accept drafting recommendations but we share the views expressed that when writing recommendations about Cluster 4 can 5, and without covering the Cluster 2 and 3, it's not really clear what kind of recommendations we want to come -- to put.  However, we do -- can offer a recommendation as it's a draft and will be looked at at the next meeting.  We could say that enhanced cooperation will help assure that Internet governance is carried out according to WSIS principles with full participation from all stakeholders in their respective roles.  And enhanced cooperation will enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities pertaining to Internet and that by operationalizing enhanced cooperation through a body under the U.N. umbrella international public policy decision will be legitimate.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia.  I think, as I mentioned, all submissions, all proposals for recommendations will be included in this rolling document which will be posted on the CSTD Web site.  Sweden.

 >>SWEDEN: Thank you.  Well, Brazil, Mexico, United Kingdom, and Sweden would then like to put forward some draft recommendations.  We have tried to capture what we have interpreted as some of the areas where there might be emerging consensus, especially in relation to Group 4 and 5 of questions.  And we would like to emphasize that this is just a starting point and it's not a finished product in any way, but something for the group to consider.  That's the first one.
 Members should explore ways to strengthen participation of all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global Internet governance fora, including through funding mechanisms and alternative working methods such as remote participation.  
 Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to participate through capacity building, including but not limited to training programs, awareness raising, best practice sharing.  
 Three, members should work with developing countries to create a fair and consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates affordable access for all stakeholders.  
 And four, the role of government should include but not be limited to, to empower Internet uses, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework that is transparent, accountable, and equitable, and protect human rights online, to foster a robust global Internet infrastructure and support multistakeholder processes and partnerships.
 So once again, I would just like to underline that this is just something that we see as a starting point, something that we can build up on, and I believe we can send -- send those drafts to the Secretariat.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden, Brazil, Mexico, and United Kingdom.  I hope I didn't forget anyone.  Naturally, we expect that you submit it electronically to the Secretariat that we would be able to post it on the Web site and the same applies to Saudi Arabia.  We would like to have your contribution in print form to be posted on the Web site.  I can see India, then Mexico and Phil.  And Japan.  Sorry.  Japan was the first.  I'm sorry, I couldn't see you.  So please, take the floor.

 >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I deeply appreciate the U.S. and Sweden and Brazil and Mexico and U.K. to prepare the great contribution, preparing the draft of the recommendations for starting point of the discussion.  Japan would like to submit the region comment and other input concerning the recommendations after the meeting concerning with the -- the regional organizations within Japan.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan.  We are awaiting for your submissions.  India, please.

 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  Just to flag that we would be making a recommendation on the list to address that particular dimension relating to the digital divide and the need for certain measures because where there is no access, no Internet, I think they also need to be brought into this before we can start talking about their empowerment, which some of these measures would empower those or make them part of the operation system.  But we need to perhaps address other dimensions.  On that direction we will try to put a recommendation.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you.  Understand I can't help myself to sharing with you that when we were in Durban there was a -- one morning I think many of the participants went to a school which was some 40 kilometers from Durban to help them to paint the walls.  And after this very nice action there was some meeting with the students, young students.  I believe it's a secondary school.  And there was a question asked, how many of you have you heard about the Internet?  Of the 30, there was one student who raised his hand.  Just one.  So I think there's merit in what you're saying.  Okay.  Mexico.

 >>MEXICO: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I'd just like to thank my colleague from Sweden to introduce this proposal, recommendations, because we thought that, as you mentioned, that the objective was to have something -- quickly to start something and have it in black and white.  So we think it's a very good step, and as you said, this is -- this -- all these contributions will be a working process and contributions regardless of what we decide on the other points, but it's a starting point.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mexico.  Phil.

 >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair.  Much thank the contributors for providing the thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions.  I'm sure, as the distinguished delegate from Mexico said, it is a starting point and something to evolve.  The only point I would ask is that when the documents and proposals are posted on the Web site, could we also have the source of the proposal identified so that we can engage in conversations and discussions going forward to see and understand and hopefully when we come back in February to be very conversant with the other's views and hopefully agreements.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, it is my understanding that we shall quote the sources.  I mean, it provides the understanding of the sources as well and it's not really the understanding but I would assume the wishes of the source to be quoted.  Yes.  I can see Parminder, and before -- and there's -- 
 [ Speaker is off microphone. ] Mexico has already taken the floor.
 We have to recognize also some contributions were received by e-mail which will also be posted and there were contributions from Finland, Mervi contributed, and we have contributions from Avri and Carlos.  So all these contributions -- and Joy.  All these contributions will be posted on the Web site.  If you feel like introducing them, that's perfectly okay.  If you don't, that's okay as well.  So I just wanted to flag it that we have further contributions that will be posted on the Web site.  Probably at this hour we don't really want to go into detailed debate, but as I indicated to you, I think this is just the beginning.  Lesotho.

 >>LESOTHO: Thank you very much, Chair.  After sitting here a little bit quiet for the week, but solely because most of the points that have been raised are things that we are agreeable to.  Chair, I just wanted to reemphasize two points that have already been raised, particularly for developing countries and more specifically least-developed countries.  For them to be -- this relates to capacity building as well including their existing mechanisms within, basically national as well as regional mechanisms that are in place.  
 And lastly, Chair, the point that you raised about the school you went to, seeing that Durbin is also very close to my country, the issue about digital divide that -- that has been raised by other colleagues here already, that it is very important that we -- it is very much captured.  
 And lastly, Chair, I just want to thank all the -- the various speakers that have made their various recommendations and we look forward to going through those in preparation for the February meeting.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Lesotho.  Brazil.

 >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I -- my first comment is that was what was originally proposed by Marilyn Cade and supported by you but we should have a platform that would allow us internationally to feed into some other draft recommendations that will enable us at the beginning of next meeting to have a set of formulations we can work on.  I think this would be very helpful from the point of view of efficiency of how we work.  And then we, of course, also benefit from having the mapping exercise, I think we'll have tools that will assist us in our further work.
 One thing about making these proposals, and I have insisted in exercising the aspect that these are initial and they do not, I think, address correctly the vision and do not adequately encompass the mandate we are given.  And if I can quote a thought from my compatriot, Carlos Afonso, we are discussing yesterday and he's been in this process for many years and he was just recalling that much of what we have been doing here has in some way already been addressed.  So we run the risk in the end of just repeating formulations that have been already known.  And so if we want to move ahead and make a contribution, real contribution, we must make a very good effort to go beyond that.  I think the mapping exercise will be a tool for that.  I think if we can have those formulation can think about these and try to put more substance.  I think certainly we need to go beyond the mere identification of the issues and making a call because these are things that are already there.
 One proposal we are not -- but I'd like to indicate in line with what we have been saying, and Saudi Arabia has also made a proposal in regard to Groups 1 and 2 and 3.  And one thing that is independent from this mapping is our assessment that we would like a platform but to enable for holistic integrated discussion.  So this is something that we can, I think of as of now, we will in the next few days or so forward a proposal for that.  But look something like operationalizing enhanced cooperation requires that we should maybe say multistakeholder platform through each government an equal footing could engage in the discussion and possible policymaking of international public-related issues, or something in that direction.  And we think it's not pre-judging the outcome of the mapping exercise because we think this is something that is needed.  And then I think we'll have to discuss, in our next meeting, whether we can -- there's enough consensus where that should be located, what to be formed.  I think that will be relevant discussion.  I think on the basis of the proposals from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others, maybe we can have enough substance of discussion and try to frame some way to address this.  And of course, the specific recommendations relating to the mapping exercise of more specific issues.
 So I'm very glad that we have come to this.  I was a bit concerned that we would come out of the meeting without something more concrete.  This is not yet -- I repeat, that does not affect the foundation of the (indiscernible) but it is a step in the direction of building something that I think in the interest of calling us to go beyond what we have already have on the table.  And as Carlos Afonso has reminded me, and I'm very thankful for him to recall this, not to give impression that we are just, let's say, rephrasing and giving better wording for things that are already there, even in the Tunis Agenda.  I think we must go beyond that, and we have this opportunity and I think the moment is right to do so.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil.  I can promise you we will go beyond.  I have no doubt.  And Parminder, you want to take the floor?  Okay.  So I think this is a time to -- Oh, India.

 >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair.  I couldn't but make this one last comment before we conclude.  This is on the lines the distinguished ambassador from Brazil has mentioned of the various stakeholders.  One idea which I'm just throwing it up here which we could pursue it in our future intersession as well as during the next debate, there are obviously few models which -- wherein governments have taken certain initiatives in some regions on how to prepare those Internet -- principles on Internet.  One I can certainly recall is the OECD which has been referred to by some of the colleagues.  And there are distinct areas where I think there is -- there is a felt need to have active role of governments, of course with the involvement through various processes of all other stakeholders.  To just to name some of them, which I'm interested in reading, going through some of the documents that have been adopted by this body, and there is a call to see how it can be made applicable, replicate such things in a global manner.  Whether it is cybersecurity, whether it is consumer rights, whether it is children online, whether it is international cooperation Internet governance, cross-border enforcement cooperation.  There are some areas I think where we would eventually be required to make a comment on.  And I think it will be another important contribution from our point of view, that where such areas -- again, the least possible, what we call friction, these are areas I'm sure all stakeholders are involved but there's a certain lead that the governments will need to take.  Just a very indicative list.  Which have been acknowledge and which are a part of the established documents which are being already followed by a few governments by virtue of a certain regional engagement.  I don't think we will be out of place to reflect on some such areas and how we can see that such a mechanism or a fora, better way you can call where governments can actually take an active role (indiscernible) in our discussions in future.  Thank you, Chair.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Thank you, India.
 I believe this is the time to conclude.  I won't be long.  Japan, you want to take the floor.

 >>JAPAN:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Just one question.  To submit contributions and a comment, can you tell us the deadline to submit the contribution and the comments to the contributions and how to submit such kind of contribution?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Probably the best way to submit your contribution is to the secretariat.  The secretariat will post it on the Web site.  As for the deadline, probably it will be the beginning of our next meeting.  But all of us would prefer to have the comments, contributions, much before.  But even during the meeting, you can contribute.  We have no deadline.  But please set yourself a deadline to do it considering what you would like to have from others.
 Parminder.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:   Thank you, Chair.  Again for clarification, I propose, that if the groups are submitting proposals and for the purpose of the consideration of other members of the group, to submit them on the list because then everybody immediately knows that there is a proposal because you never know how often to keep on going to the Web site.  Just a proposal.  People have different Web or Internet behavior.
 When the group gets it, they kind of respond to it immediately.  So that's the whole idea so that probably it would be good in addition, of course, to putting it on the Web.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   I think this is a good way forward, yeah.  Okay.
 So please make your submissions in any way.
 So, ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the end of this meeting.  I really want to congratulate you on the good cooperation you have shown.  I think all of you contributed in a very, very good way.  And it helped us, all of us, to have a better understanding of the issues which are ahead of us.
 We managed to go through the contributions.  We analyzed the questions.  We decided to set up a correspondence group.  We decided on the terms of references for the correspondence group.  We had a submission about the possible framework for all recommendations.  But last, but not least, we had quite a lot of submissions, proposals, for recommendations.
 So I'm really pleased with the result we had up to now.  And I'm also optimistic about the future meeting we are going to have in February.
 There is a great work waiting for us.  I would encourage you to contribute to the best of your knowledge to the work of the correspondence group and to the work of the working group itself in forms of submissions, of recommendations.
 And please be prepared that for the next meeting, we are going to have a very, very hard task.  We have to finish our work by providing recommendations in the sense the Ambassador of Brazil reminded us, that we should go beyond what has been done up till now.  That is the reason we are here.
 And last, but not least, I would like to thank -- well, not last, I would like to thank, first of all, the secretariat for the excellent work they provided for us.  And I would like to thank the scribes who have followed us.  They did a great job.  So I want to give a hand to them.
 [ Applause ]
 Thank you for your presence here, for your contributions.  And I wish you a good journey back home.
 Saudi Arabia.

 >>SAUDI ARABIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  But we cannot conclude without also thanking you for your able leadership and you deserve applaud and a hand from us all.
 [ Applause ]
 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Virat?

 >>VIRAT BHATIA:   Chairman, just one last point.  I think for the last meeting, since we are timing it very carefully next to the MAG meeting and I suppose a lot more observers and especially from the civil society would want to participate, if we can be explicit about the date and the timing and the process for their participation as observers well in advance, it will help them to be here because they will be planning their visit to attend both meetings, including the weekend, so that will be helpful for them.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MAJOR:   Right.
 (Meeting has concluded.)  
 

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Nov 11 10:19:04 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:19:04 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <B5AA5D38-CB5D-406D-B8E5-D23252EF98C8@istaff.org>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <B5AA5D38-CB5D-406D-B8E5-D23252EF98C8@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <5280F568.8030205@cafonso.ca>

Dear all, first of all I dismiss the proposal from Corsair Drake to call
it MYOPIC. It is not myopic at all, but I feel adding to the mix
mandatory field expertise could make it viable.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 11/11/2013 01:10 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 
>> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakehol
 d
ers (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).
>>
>> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy".
>>
>> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. 
>> ...
> 
> Wolfgang - 
>  
>    I've been staring at the above paragraphs for several days, and have come to
>    the conclusion that I agree in the abstract but not with some of the specifics...
>  
>    I _do_ agree that "there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communication, 
>    coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes 
>    early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into account that 
>    different stakeholders have different but shared responsibilities)"  Furthermore,
>    I believe that an Internet policy matter "clearing house", or (as Lee suggests, 
>    staff capacity to provide that capability) might also be quite helpful, although
>    the details of such may prove vexing.  (Jeremy's proposal is also an intriguing
>    start here...)
> 
>    The area of less agreement would be in ability to distinguish Internet public policy 
>    issues from Internet day-to-day operational issues, particularly when it comes to 
>    judging these issues with respect to the existing Internet registry systems...   
>    It is simply not possible for all issues to be considered as a political matter,
>    otherwise every item of Internet operations of "critical Internet resources" would 
>    be also a potential public policy issue, and the Internet would quickly bog down 
>    with thousands of routine administrative tasks on hold, pending being cleared of 
>    political implications...
> 
>    For example, the development of a schedule of DNS reserved names definitely has
>    public policy implications, but once it has been established, then it allows 
>    registry operations to proceed without having to send each and every individual 
>    registration request within each subdomain to a body of public policy experts to 
>    individually review and approve.  Similarly, policies for IP address management
>    are developed in each of the regions (and there are indeed public policy aspects 
>    to IP address policies); the subsequent implementation and routine operations per 
>    those policies should not be a political matter (so long as there is fidelity in
>    implementation and execution to the developed policies.)
> 
>    The actual boundary I refer to is not "political vs technical"; it's the policy 
>    development (which needs to consider both technical and public policy aspects) 
>    vs routine, day-to-day administrative and operational tasks (which must function
>    independently but with fidelity to the developed policies)   This does not in any 
>    way detract from your keen observation regarding the need for "bottom up enhanced 
>    communication, coordination and collaboration"; I just want to make sure we don't
>    lose the distinction of policy development vs policy implementation and execution.
> 
> Thanks for the thoughtful response!
> /John
> 
> Disclaimers:  My views alone.  Luckily, discussion of Internet cooperation matters 
>               is a routine administrative task for me, otherwise these email would
>               be held pending approval via a more formal development process...
>                
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Mon Nov 11 12:49:49 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:49:49 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <5280F568.8030205@cafonso.ca>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <B5AA5D38-CB5D-406D-B8E5-D23252EF98C8@istaff.org> <5280F568.8030205@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <FFB08FBD-F57A-4EC7-80B1-E61E71FAC6DF@uzh.ch>

Grande Carlos

It was a joke, not a proposal…?

Best

Bill

On Nov 11, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Dear all, first of all I dismiss the proposal from Corsair Drake to call
> it MYOPIC. It is not myopic at all, but I feel adding to the mix
> mandatory field expertise could make it viable.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 11/11/2013 01:10 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakehold
> ers (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).
>>> 
>>> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy".
>>> 
>>> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. 
>>> ...
>> 
>> Wolfgang - 
>> 
>>   I've been staring at the above paragraphs for several days, and have come to
>>   the conclusion that I agree in the abstract but not with some of the specifics...
>> 
>>   I _do_ agree that "there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communication, 
>>   coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes 
>>   early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into account that 
>>   different stakeholders have different but shared responsibilities)"  Furthermore,
>>   I believe that an Internet policy matter "clearing house", or (as Lee suggests, 
>>   staff capacity to provide that capability) might also be quite helpful, although
>>   the details of such may prove vexing.  (Jeremy's proposal is also an intriguing
>>   start here...)
>> 
>>   The area of less agreement would be in ability to distinguish Internet public policy 
>>   issues from Internet day-to-day operational issues, particularly when it comes to 
>>   judging these issues with respect to the existing Internet registry systems...   
>>   It is simply not possible for all issues to be considered as a political matter,
>>   otherwise every item of Internet operations of "critical Internet resources" would 
>>   be also a potential public policy issue, and the Internet would quickly bog down 
>>   with thousands of routine administrative tasks on hold, pending being cleared of 
>>   political implications...
>> 
>>   For example, the development of a schedule of DNS reserved names definitely has
>>   public policy implications, but once it has been established, then it allows 
>>   registry operations to proceed without having to send each and every individual 
>>   registration request within each subdomain to a body of public policy experts to 
>>   individually review and approve.  Similarly, policies for IP address management
>>   are developed in each of the regions (and there are indeed public policy aspects 
>>   to IP address policies); the subsequent implementation and routine operations per 
>>   those policies should not be a political matter (so long as there is fidelity in
>>   implementation and execution to the developed policies.)
>> 
>>   The actual boundary I refer to is not "political vs technical"; it's the policy 
>>   development (which needs to consider both technical and public policy aspects) 
>>   vs routine, day-to-day administrative and operational tasks (which must function
>>   independently but with fidelity to the developed policies)   This does not in any 
>>   way detract from your keen observation regarding the need for "bottom up enhanced 
>>   communication, coordination and collaboration"; I just want to make sure we don't
>>   lose the distinction of policy development vs policy implementation and execution.
>> 
>> Thanks for the thoughtful response!
>> /John
>> 
>> Disclaimers:  My views alone.  Luckily, discussion of Internet cooperation matters 
>>              is a routine administrative task for me, otherwise these email would
>>              be held pending approval via a more formal development process...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Nov 11 13:07:01 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:07:01 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <FFB08FBD-F57A-4EC7-80B1-E61E71FAC6DF@uzh.ch>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <B5AA5D38-CB5D-406D-B8E5-D23252EF98C8@istaff.org> <5280F568.8030205@cafonso.ca> <FFB08FBD-F57A-4EC7-80B1-E61E71FAC6DF@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <52811CC5.9080305@cafonso.ca>

Of course! Just following up on the joke :)

--c.a.

On 11/11/2013 03:49 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Grande Carlos
> 
> It was a joke, not a proposal…?
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Nov 11, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Dear all, first of all I dismiss the proposal from Corsair Drake to call
>> it MYOPIC. It is not myopic at all, but I feel adding to the mix
>> mandatory field expertise could make it viable.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 11/11/2013 01:10 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeh
 o
ld
>> ers (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).
>>>>
>>>> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy".
>>>>
>>>> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. 
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Wolfgang - 
>>>
>>>   I've been staring at the above paragraphs for several days, and have come to
>>>   the conclusion that I agree in the abstract but not with some of the specifics...
>>>
>>>   I _do_ agree that "there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communication, 
>>>   coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes 
>>>   early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into account that 
>>>   different stakeholders have different but shared responsibilities)"  Furthermore,
>>>   I believe that an Internet policy matter "clearing house", or (as Lee suggests, 
>>>   staff capacity to provide that capability) might also be quite helpful, although
>>>   the details of such may prove vexing.  (Jeremy's proposal is also an intriguing
>>>   start here...)
>>>
>>>   The area of less agreement would be in ability to distinguish Internet public policy 
>>>   issues from Internet day-to-day operational issues, particularly when it comes to 
>>>   judging these issues with respect to the existing Internet registry systems...   
>>>   It is simply not possible for all issues to be considered as a political matter,
>>>   otherwise every item of Internet operations of "critical Internet resources" would 
>>>   be also a potential public policy issue, and the Internet would quickly bog down 
>>>   with thousands of routine administrative tasks on hold, pending being cleared of 
>>>   political implications...
>>>
>>>   For example, the development of a schedule of DNS reserved names definitely has
>>>   public policy implications, but once it has been established, then it allows 
>>>   registry operations to proceed without having to send each and every individual 
>>>   registration request within each subdomain to a body of public policy experts to 
>>>   individually review and approve.  Similarly, policies for IP address management
>>>   are developed in each of the regions (and there are indeed public policy aspects 
>>>   to IP address policies); the subsequent implementation and routine operations per 
>>>   those policies should not be a political matter (so long as there is fidelity in
>>>   implementation and execution to the developed policies.)
>>>
>>>   The actual boundary I refer to is not "political vs technical"; it's the policy 
>>>   development (which needs to consider both technical and public policy aspects) 
>>>   vs routine, day-to-day administrative and operational tasks (which must function
>>>   independently but with fidelity to the developed policies)   This does not in any 
>>>   way detract from your keen observation regarding the need for "bottom up enhanced 
>>>   communication, coordination and collaboration"; I just want to make sure we don't
>>>   lose the distinction of policy development vs policy implementation and execution.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the thoughtful response!
>>> /John
>>>
>>> Disclaimers:  My views alone.  Luckily, discussion of Internet cooperation matters 
>>>              is a routine administrative task for me, otherwise these email would
>>>              be held pending approval via a more formal development process...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Nov 11 18:01:56 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:01:56 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for
  Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-r_fi0qB+yYDXC8i=aHgQMVKWxShGvCHY3B-Zj9BV42Q@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
 <CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
 <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
 <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
 <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
 <20131110124021.E3FDD3287CC@a2knetwork.org>
 <CADFgh13bQ+VgOVas-WcKPnZeMW6s0s4_+-gtfozmmRSVmfnz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh131MH-oqC=QCpWvA=POcL6z3vfu0kbHqMbT7doRSk5n4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D0C110D1-168F-42D0-8780-45F6179CD1D8@arin.net>
 <CACTo+v-r_fi0qB+yYDXC8i=aHgQMVKWxShGvCHY3B-Zj9BV42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.67.1642081812.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

Dear Mawaki,
two comments:

At 20:28 10/11/2013, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>#3 That procedure does not have to be carried out publicly on a 
>discussion list such as these ones --for, among other things, the 
>safety reasons and possible risks that have already been mentioned. 
>A structure may be put in place (NomCom?) to receive such statements.

We know from experience there only are public discussions, with the 
help of NSA and/or wikileaks and co. As E.S (Eric Schmidt, not Edward 
Snowden) puts it: if you do not want something to be published on the 
internet do not do it.


>there are basically three ways for having money: i) you sell 
>something, goods or services; ii) you tax someone else; or iii) 
>someone chooses to give you the money for whatever reason, possibly 
>including a service you didn't even set out to sell. In CS we do at 
>least a little bit of the three --through grant proposals or 
>consultancy, member dues (albeit with less dire consequences than 
>defaulting on your income tax), and fundraising or donations CS orgs 
>receive. But it looks like the latter category is what supports the 
>most CS advocacy activities. That makes you think twice about where 
>we actually are on the power map. Maybe there is some solace to be 
>found in the fact that many of the sources CS orgs get money from 
>are also part of CS, to begin with: private citizens who once were 
>industrious enough and with enough ingenuity to become wealthy and 
>set up foundations or other charity orgs. Short of that, CS would 
>perhaps have to receive the bulk of its money from the people who 
>tax other people.

The origin of the money is not a problem. The problem is the 
non-disclosure. There are several ways around that can be explored:

* a CS oath, as for the Olympics.
* the sponsorship to be disclosed at registration.
* the creation of a CSFoundation to collect and attribute fundings in 
a fairly ballanced manner and published policy.
   Its CSnomcom list would gather reps from all the participating CS 
organizations.

jfc 


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Nov 11 22:32:21 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:32:21 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] MAG nomination process via Best Bits
Message-ID: <5281A145.3050705@ciroap.org>

With apologies for the delay in posting about this (due to travel and
other deadlines), this is to note that if you are interested in
volunteering as a civil society representative on the IGF
Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in the coming year, you may have
heard that nominations are being taken until 1 December.  You can
self-nominate, but there is some advantage to be had in having your
nomination forwarded and supported by other civil society groups.  There
are a number of choice in that regard, and for those of you who have
closer ties to the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo or the Internet
Rights and Principles Coalition for example, you may want to explore
those options.

Otherwise, Best Bits has also been developing a draft process for
nominating representatives to external groups, which may suit those who
aren't primarily associated with the other civil society groups or
networks.  The process is still open for discussion on the procedure
wiki at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/.  The process, which
is very loose compared to the IGC's more formal procedure, simply
provides as follows:

  * The steering committee shall call for expressions of interest on the
    main list.
  * Selection criteria will be decided on a case-by-case basis and
    will be shared when the steering committee publicises the call, but
    at a very minimum geographical diversity (if not balance) and gender
    balance should be taken into account.
  * The steering committee will select a proposed slate of nominees,
    taking into account those who expressed interest.
  * The proposed nominees will be posted back to the main list and
    approved by consensus.

Although the process was mentioned in Bali, we didn't have time to
discuss it in detail.  I feel, personally, that we should at least test
it out.  If it doesn't work, then there is another option - see below -
which involves working with other civil society networks to jointly
collaborate on putting forward slates of nominees.  But the idea behind
having a Best Bits procedure as that it provides a simpler way for us
all to get behind and amplify the efforts of those who wish to serve
civil society in an Internet governance committee or forum.  The
steering committee's role is meant to be very light, just to ensure balance.

In the longer term, an idea being explored is to have an umbrella
process among the whole of civil society, which hasn't existed since the
WSIS days.  Hopefully that might be in place by the time we need to add
or replace representatives to the I* coalition/dialogue, and when
nominating various representatives for the Brazil summit.  In that
regard, I have suggested a draft process,[0] which we can go on to
discuss on whatever list ends up being used for the summit discussion
(this needs to be finally resolved, and Deborah will post about the
options soon.  My two cents: post to whichever list you prefer).

As a step towards that, we could ask the IGC to include our nominees in
their slate also, though under the IGC charter the names would require
further consideration by their nominating committee... so we should also
submit list of names separately.  (If you have views on this, please
feel free to express them.)

Since some people seem unsure who the interim steering committee are, a
reminder that it is Andrew Puddephatt (Global Partners), Anja Kovacs
(Internet and Democracy Project), Deborah Brown (Access), myself
(Consumers International), Joana Varon Ferraz (FGV/CTS), Marianne
Franklin (individual/IRP coalition), Nnenna (World Wide Web Foundation)
and Valeria Betancourt (APC).  We have a procedure for choosing a new
steering committee, and that also needs to be tested out - though a
general preference expressed by a number of people in Bali was that we
should not rush into this, when it could be useful to have continuity at
least over the next few months leading to the Brazil summit.  Perhaps
after the interim steering committee has been in place for one year, it
may be a good time to renew it - just in my personal opinion.

So, I've asked the rest of the steering committee to help come up with
some suggestions for criteria, and we'll follow up with those soon.
 Meanwhile, if you are interested in being included in a Best Bits
slate, you can email steering at lists.bestbits.net.  Note, this doesn't
mean you can't (also) self-nominate, or nominate through the IGC or
another process.

[0] • Develop criteria for civil society networks that could form a
loose peak body.
• Outreach to the relevant networks to agree to form that peak body,
initially with one representative each (chosen per their own procedures).
• Peak body suggests a list of criteria for nominations (including
transparency and accountability requirements), which their constituents
approve.
• Members of peak body use their own network's procedures to put its
nominees into a shortlist.
• Peak body applies those criteria to develop a joint final list of
nominees.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/f872ae2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/f872ae2a/attachment.sig>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Nov 11 23:14:59 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 13:14:59 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D3D33DA-11CB-4859-A657-467C6EDC0F97@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Carolina,

Could you or any of the other members of the i-coordination list send an update?   Just a quick review of the main discussion points, or updates to the documents you circulated earlier.  Thank you.

Best,

Adam


On Nov 5, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:

> i-coordination list


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Tue Nov 12 03:37:49 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:37:49 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <4D3D33DA-11CB-4859-A657-467C6EDC0F97@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com> <4D3D33DA-11CB-4859-A657-467C6EDC0F97@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <5F9081A0-6BE3-49F8-844A-DE483573312A@uzh.ch>

Hi

+1.  As we will be talking with Fadi and Theresa about this in a couple days in Buenos Aires, it’d be helpful to not be in the dark going into the conversation.

Thanks

Bill

On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:14 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Hi Carolina,
> 
> Could you or any of the other members of the i-coordination list send an update?   Just a quick review of the main discussion points, or updates to the documents you circulated earlier.  Thank you.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> 
>> i-coordination list
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


From steve at openmedia.ca  Tue Nov 12 04:16:54 2013
From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 01:16:54 -0800
Subject: [IRPCoalition] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits]
 Marco Civil vote posponed !
In-Reply-To: <DUB108-W19C9D2408AF6D961B47256C6F00@phx.gbl>
References: <CAK-FJAfGv0EBRkYj=+S_Awj5K1mjjGYqevam8wnTVkPm8W4moA@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1VbRZK-0007c4-Ac@igcaucus.org> <DUB108-W19C9D2408AF6D961B47256C6F00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAJOr_J6edf7n_F6+wHp21J+sRVmYj=CZ9m1xMSeHBew2xnk5fQ@mail.gmail.com>

If anyone is interested in Net Neutrality policy in Canada there's a report
we put together here: http://openmedia.ca/plan

best,

--
*Steve Anderson*
Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca
604-837-5730
http://openmedia.ca <http://www.openmedia.ca/>
steve at openmedia.ca

Follow me on Twitter <http://twitter.com/Steve_Media>
Friend me on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/Steve.Media>


* *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates.
<http://demandchoice.ca>*

**Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->>
OurFairDeal.org <http://OurFairDeal.org>*



*Confidentiality Warning:*

* This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use
of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return
e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank
you. Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout
fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de
ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une
information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le
destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie,
distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y
est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire
prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel
et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.*


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Luca Belli <lucabelli at hotmail.it> wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
>
> As stressed by Louis, Network Neutrality is a thorny and multifaceted
> issue.
>
> The NN debate is gaining great political momentum because it has obvious
> consequences on media (de)centralisation and therefore on media control.
> One of the points of rough consensus that clearly emerged during IGF
> workshop 340 “*Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms*” is that
> the protection of NN has direct consequences on the full enjoyment of
> end-users’ human rights, on media pluralism and on consumers’ rights. And
> these consequences are particularly amplified when Internet users are
> marginalised people who are not able to organise themselves and get their
> voice heard by policy-makers.
>
>
> The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DC NN) has elaborated a
> Report on “*The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow*”
> that aims at elucidating some of the facets of the NN debate, focusing
> particularly on human rights issues. The report is available here:
> http://nebula.wsimg.com/22eb364444f4e32abb876b9be835baf8?AccessKeyId=B45063449B96D27B8F85&disposition=0
>
> By all means, comments are more than welcome.
>
>
> Furthermore, the DC NN has developed a model framework on net neutrality,
> transposing the IETF standardisation process to NN policy-making (see the
> contribution on “A Discourse Principle Approach to Network Neutrality” in
> the DC NN report). The elaboration of the model framework was initiated and
> has been stimulated by the Council of Europe that stressed the need for a
> model framework on net neutrality since 2010 (see: art 9 of the CoE
> Committee of Ministers Declaration on Network Neutrality). The model has
> been developed entirely online by the DC NN through an open, transparent,
> inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach and is going to be communicated to
> the CoE Committee of Ministers in a couple of weeks.
>
>
> What we should be aware of is that unregulated discriminatory
> traffic-management has the potential to affect almost all dimensions of
> Internet governance, leading to enormous concentration of power in the
> hands of private entities that are not framed by rule-of-law and due
> process principles. For this reason, y humble opinion is that NN should be
> one of the priorities of the Rio “meeting” in April.
>
>
> I truly hope that that people will realise that what is at stake is the
> choice between allowing Internet users to be active participants to the
> Internet or mere information recipients.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Luca
>
> *Luca Belli <http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/luca-belli/24/20/1a4>*
> *Doctorant en Droit Public*
> *CERSA,**Université **Panthéon-Assas*
> *Sorbonne University <http://www.sorbonne-universites.fr/#KLINK>*
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100
> > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> > From: jefsey at jefsey.com
> > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed !
> >
> > At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> > >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial
> > >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia,
> > >but it would be good to have material out there from you all
> > >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed
> > >in Brasilia right now....
> > >
> > >
> http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm
> >
> > Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined.
> > Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly
> > undefined and subjective. However, "neutral" means "indifferent to".
> > This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever
> > it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of
> > view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are
> > independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this
> > therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles:
> >
> > 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may
> > be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the
> > disparities between customers and traffic levels.
> > 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be)
> > that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the
> > advantages to the "most favored partner" .
> >
> > Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides
> > can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among
> > providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as
> > far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not
> > the case if:
> >
> > 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non
> > commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or
> > to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its
> > delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
> > 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a
> > lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated
> > management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
> >
> > From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from
> > an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides
> > you an internet link
> > that
> > he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with
> > the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is
> > a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust.
> >
> > The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special
> > complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation.
> >
> > In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the
> > users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT
> > a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of
> > each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently
> > use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the
> > rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do
> > not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements
> > (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education,
> > etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal
> > or corporate relational spaces within the digital international
> > networking space (InterNet).
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/ee8fd30a/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Nov 12 06:44:14 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:44:14 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] five IETF hums
Message-ID: <mailman.68.1642081812.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

This is a mail from Russ Housley. Noteworthy:
(1) they were formed very quickly without full exploration at the plenary
(2) there are concerns that opportunistic encryption could harm other 
security efforts.

The conclusion could be that discussion is to be as informed as is 
possible and that the IETF community will take steps to address 
pervasive surveillance. All this obviously depends on "The BUG" 
resolution. 
http://bramsummit.org/index.php?title=Banned_Use_Gene_%28The_Bug%29_-_Mentalit%C3%A9_de_l%27utilisation_Restreinte_%28MUR%29 
The resolution is most probably not at the IETF level. We do not use 
(trust?) IPsec while we know about SSH.
jfc

>On 11/6/13 12:41 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>At the end of the IETF88 Technical Plenary, there were five 
>hums.  This note is to provide the text of the hums and the 
>community response.  The people in the room were asked to hum for 
>YES if they agreed with the statement and hum for NO if they 
>disagreed with the statement.
>
>1.  The IETF is willing to respond to the pervasive surveillance attack?
>Overwhelming YES.  Silence for NO.
>
>2. Pervasive surveillance is an attack, and the IETF needs to adjust 
>our threat model to consider it when developing standards track specifications.
>Very strong YES.  Silence for NO.
>
>3. The IETF should include encryption, even outside authentication, 
>where practical.
>Strong YES.  Silence for NO.
>
>4.  The IETF should strive for end-to-end encryption, even when 
>there are middleboxes in the path.
>Mixed response, but more YES than NO.
>
>5.  Many insecure protocols are used in the Internet today, and the 
>IETF should create a secure alternative for the popular ones.
>Mostly YES, but some NO.



From joana at varonferraz.com  Tue Nov 12 09:09:57 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:09:57 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few days,
I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here quick updates
on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which now is being called
dialogue or 1net:

Wisely, the archive and the subscription process to the list is now open to
anyone. Subscriptions here https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination.
Archives accessible here https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/

Also, a website called 1net.org was put in place and sent by Adiel to the
list, who asked for comments. A note will go out in the next days to those
who attended wider meetings in Bali to sign up via the website.

Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:

- Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly
business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following our
move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from each
stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to identify 3
representatives to participate in the preparations.

- Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish a
dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials for
discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my perception,
reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital to assess our
level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of representativeness of CS
will knock again on our doors.

Hope it helps

All the best,

joana


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/4aad14db/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Nov 12 09:52:55 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:52:55 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp>

Dear Joana,

Thank you very much.  

Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali, representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to help organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an open meeting.  Was this discussed on the list, and they instead decided on a more limited steering committee?  (I will try to look at the archives).

Best,

Adam



On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote:

> Dear all, 
> 
> Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here quick updates on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which now is being called dialogue or 1net:
> 
> Wisely, the archive and the subscription process to the list is now open to anyone. Subscriptions here https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. Archives accessible here https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
> 
> Also, a website called 1net.org was put in place and sent by Adiel to the list, who asked for comments. A note will go out in the next days to those who attended wider meetings in Bali to sign up via the website. 
> 
> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
> 
> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations. 
> 
> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
> 
> Hope it helps
> 
> All the best, 
> 
> joana
>  
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


From joana at varonferraz.com  Tue Nov 12 10:18:27 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 13:18:27 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTo9EWiUp5V3z=LYtKnh7TpUH7pLxPYkVga6W-eQ+tFspA@mail.gmail.com>

Good point, Adam. Please, remember that this quick summary is a report on
the the strategy developed just within the dialogue/1net.

The Brazilian government is still to delivery an statement with details for
engagement, but the spirit, as far as I know, is that it will be open and
inclusive. Please, remember that we have even proposed to the Minister of
Communications to open a platform for public consultation and the idea was
welcomed.
Let us develop further the conversations with the Brazilian government to
search for more on this.

best

joana


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Dear Joana,
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali,
> representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to help
> organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an open meeting.
>  Was this discussed on the list, and they instead decided on a more limited
> steering committee?  (I will try to look at the archives).
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few days,
> I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here quick updates
> on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which now is being called
> dialogue or 1net:
> >
> > Wisely, the archive and the subscription process to the list is now open
> to anyone. Subscriptions here
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. Archives accessible here
> https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
> >
> > Also, a website called 1net.org was put in place and sent by Adiel to
> the list, who asked for comments. A note will go out in the next days to
> those who attended wider meetings in Bali to sign up via the website.
> >
> > Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
> >
> > - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly
> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following our
> move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from each
> stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to identify 3
> representatives to participate in the preparations.
> >
> > - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish a
> dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials for
> discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my perception,
> reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital to assess our
> level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of representativeness of CS
> will knock again on our doors.
> >
> > Hope it helps
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > joana
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> >
> > Joana Varon Ferraz
> > @joana_varon
> > PGP 0x016B8E73
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/1aa365f6/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Nov 12 10:20:34 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:20:34 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTo9EWiUp5V3z=LYtKnh7TpUH7pLxPYkVga6W-eQ+tFspA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com> <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp> <CALTAiTo9EWiUp5V3z=LYtKnh7TpUH7pLxPYkVga6W-eQ+tFspA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52824742.3040002@cdt.org>

Hi all

Could someone point us to the latest version of the 1net framing document?

Thanks.

Matthew

On 12/11/2013 15:18, Joana Varon wrote:
> Good point, Adam. Please, remember that this quick summary is a report 
> on the the strategy developed just within the dialogue/1net.
>
> The Brazilian government is still to delivery an statement with 
> details for engagement, but the spirit, as far as I know, is that it 
> will be open and inclusive. Please, remember that we have even 
> proposed to the Minister of Communications to open a platform for 
> public consultation and the idea was welcomed.
> Let us develop further the conversations with the Brazilian government 
> to search for more on this.
>
> best
>
> joana
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp 
> <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Joana,
>
>     Thank you very much.
>
>     Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali,
>     representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all
>     to help organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to
>     an open meeting.  Was this discussed on the list, and they instead
>     decided on a more limited steering committee?  (I will try to look
>     at the archives).
>
>     Best,
>
>     Adam
>
>
>
>     On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>
>     > Dear all,
>     >
>     > Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a
>     few days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find
>     here quick updates on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue,
>     which now is being called dialogue or 1net:
>     >
>     > Wisely, the archive and the subscription process to the list is
>     now open to anyone. Subscriptions here
>     https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. Archives
>     accessible here https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
>     >
>     > Also, a website called 1net.org <http://1net.org> was put in
>     place and sent by Adiel to the list, who asked for comments. A
>     note will go out in the next days to those who attended wider
>     meetings in Bali to sign up via the website.
>     >
>     > Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>     >
>     > - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
>     particularly business, remains calling meeting). For that, the
>     dialogue, following our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3
>     representatives from each stakeholder (civil society, business,
>     technical community), to identify 3 representatives to participate
>     in the preparations.
>     >
>     > - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
>     establish a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare
>     any materials for discussion/coordinate with the broader
>     community.  On my perception, reaching balance on this steering
>     committee will be vital to assess our level of engagement in the
>     dialogue. The issue of representativeness of CS will knock again
>     on our doors.
>     >
>     > Hope it helps
>     >
>     > All the best,
>     >
>     > joana
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > --
>     >
>     > Joana Varon Ferraz
>     > @joana_varon
>     > PGP 0x016B8E73
>     >
>     >
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/0d875b12/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Nov 12 10:41:50 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:41:50 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue =  1net,
 etc.
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.g
 mail.com> <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <mailman.69.1642081812.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

Dear Joana;
thank you for the information. So far we therefore have now 
(http://bramsummit.org/index.php?title=Brazil_MultiStakeholderism_Summit:Community_portal) 
a grassroots call by (by creation date):

1. civil society / OpenUse: site:  http://bramsummit.org   mailing 
list: http://www.bramsummit.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_bramsummit.org
2. ITU: http://ideas.itu.int/category/1424 mailing list: included. 
Hastily installed. Could be bugged.
3. I* coalition/dialogue: <http://1net.org/>1net.org mailing list 
<https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination>https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination

Who's next?

At 15:09 12/11/2013, Joana Varon wrote:
>Dear all,
>Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few 
>days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here 
>quick updates on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which 
>now is being called dialogue or 1net:

>- Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, 
>particularly business, remains calling meeting). For that, the 
>dialogue, following our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 
>representatives from each stakeholder (civil society, business, 
>technical community), to identify 3 representatives to participate 
>in the preparations.

I know that the whole current issue is to make believe that the 
business and civil society techies coalesce under the statUS-quo 
restrained architectural culture of the I* $ociety. The problem is 
that (1) IAB's RFC 3869 has well documented why this was not the case 
(2) you take the risk of a technical clash at the summit as the 
Brazilian FLOSS community will be there in force and are technically 
competent people. I would therefore suggest to play lower key in 
talking of civil society's, business' and users' engineers?

At 15:52 12/11/2013, Adam Peake wrote:
>Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali, 
>representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to 
>help organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an 
>open meeting.  Was this discussed on the list, and they instead 
>decided on a more limited steering committee?  (I will try to look 
>at the archives).

If this is a MS summit, it is everybody's summit or it is nothing. 
Could it be any reason why what will be discussed would be different 
from what T&L-paid and remote attendees will want to discuss?

Best
jfc


From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Nov 12 11:33:55 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:33:55 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net,
 etc.
In-Reply-To: <20131112154210.308EA3287F3@a2knetwork.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp>
	<20131112154210.308EA3287F3@a2knetwork.org>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfCVPSQODd4T50Zw+KD+BgPcyuLCa3Fn5s-7F8FDpkVdA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Morfin,

We did not know about this wiki. Do you know who is moving it forward? The
editor is Sysop, but nothing on him ...

tks


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:41 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> Dear Joana;
> thank you for the information. So far we therefore have now (
> http://bramsummit.org/index.php?title=Brazil_MultiStakeholderism_Summit:
> Community_portal) a grassroots call by (by creation date):
>
> 1. civil society / OpenUse: site:  http://bramsummit.org   mailing list:
> http://www.bramsummit.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_bramsummit.org
> 2. ITU: http://ideas.itu.int/category/1424 mailing list: included.
> Hastily installed. Could be bugged.
> 3. I* coalition/dialogue: <http://1net.org/>1net.org mailing list <
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination>https:
> //nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
>
> Who's next?
>
> At 15:09 12/11/2013, Joana Varon wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few days,
>> I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here quick updates
>> on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which now is being called
>> dialogue or 1net:
>>
>
>  - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly
>> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following our
>> move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from each
>> stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to identify 3
>> representatives to participate in the preparations.
>>
>
> I know that the whole current issue is to make believe that the business
> and civil society techies coalesce under the statUS-quo restrained
> architectural culture of the I* $ociety. The problem is that (1) IAB's RFC
> 3869 has well documented why this was not the case (2) you take the risk of
> a technical clash at the summit as the Brazilian FLOSS community will be
> there in force and are technically competent people. I would therefore
> suggest to play lower key in talking of civil society's, business' and
> users' engineers?
>
> At 15:52 12/11/2013, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>> Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali,
>> representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to help
>> organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an open meeting.
>>  Was this discussed on the list, and they instead decided on a more limited
>> steering committee?  (I will try to look at the archives).
>>
>
> If this is a MS summit, it is everybody's summit or it is nothing. Could
> it be any reason why what will be discussed would be different from what
> T&L-paid and remote attendees will want to discuss?
>
> Best
> jfc
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/f9a0cf2b/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Tue Nov 12 12:28:48 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:28:48 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <52824742.3040002@cdt.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp> <CALTAiTo9EWiUp5V3z=LYtKnh7TpUH7pLxPYkVga6W-eQ+tFspA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52824742.3040002@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTrOnyyB+-A_a0whRqFXdDxstrf4peN7e3vLFi1QyFZWjg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Matthew and all,

5 important points to complete my previous email, red for *important info *
and blue for *actions* required:

1) The thread discussing the framing document/concept note stopped. I'm
asking for a clarification to see either it is going to be debated within
the steering committee or what. Nevertheless, it would be good if we manage
to reach Buenos Aires with our comments on this (I'm trying to find means
to go, if anyone has suggestions, let me know). So, let's follow Joy's
comments and add it to a pad for inputs. I'll coordinate with Carolina to
have a commented version online for edits and send you a link asap.


2) On the other hand, another document regarding the Summit (now called
conference), has been sent to the list (please, find it attached). It's a
proposal written by Icann and Adiel. I'm also trying to have clarifications
about it's goal (either if it is meant to be a proposal from the
1net/dialogue to the Brazilian government or if it is a Icann draft). I
don't like it in the way it stands, but we can discuss this later on, after
we get this clarification. On the other hand, it would be good to advance a
bit from our statement and know what do WE want from the summit. :)


3) Also, Carolina has just asked the list to have all this documents
(concept note and summit draft) available for subscribers as well.


4) So, in order to answer Bill's question on the other thread initiated by
Carolina with the previous follow up summary, we believe most of the work
on the next steps for 1net will be focused on:

-  these two documents (1 net/dialogue concept note and summit draft)

- pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business, tech and
civil soc) for the steering committee and for the conference working
group. Please,
note that governments are not part of the list of stakeholders involved in
the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just reporting, a dialogue without governments
is not my perfect view of a coalition)

5) The issue of engaging or not still remains, but I would keep going to
see.. once there is a steering committee and these two documents are
formatted, we will have a better idea of all this. Carolina, please,
correct me if I'm wrong, but, besides recognizing that each stakeholder
group will point it's representatives, I haven't seen any mechanism or
process debated to set the steering, have you?

kind regards,

joana







On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:20 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>  Hi all
>
> Could someone point us to the latest version of the 1net framing document?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 12/11/2013 15:18, Joana Varon wrote:
>
>   Good point, Adam. Please, remember that this quick summary is a report
> on the the strategy developed just within the dialogue/1net.
>
> The Brazilian government is still to delivery an statement with details
> for engagement, but the spirit, as far as I know, is that it will be open
> and inclusive. Please, remember that we have even proposed to the Minister
> of Communications to open a platform for public consultation and the idea
> was welcomed.
>  Let us develop further the conversations with the Brazilian government to
> search for more on this.
>
> best
>
> joana
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>> Dear Joana,
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>> Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali,
>> representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to help
>> organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an open meeting.
>>  Was this discussed on the list, and they instead decided on a more limited
>> steering committee?  (I will try to look at the archives).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few
>> days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here quick
>> updates on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which now is being
>> called dialogue or 1net:
>> >
>> > Wisely, the archive and the subscription process to the list is now
>> open to anyone. Subscriptions here
>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. Archives accessible
>> here https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
>> >
>> > Also, a website called 1net.org was put in place and sent by Adiel to
>> the list, who asked for comments. A note will go out in the next days to
>> those who attended wider meetings in Bali to sign up via the website.
>> >
>> > Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>> >
>> > - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly
>> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following our
>> move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from each
>> stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to identify 3
>> representatives to participate in the preparations.
>> >
>> > - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish
>> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials for
>> discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my perception,
>> reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital to assess our
>> level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of representativeness of CS
>> will knock again on our doors.
>> >
>> > Hope it helps
>> >
>> > All the best,
>> >
>> > joana
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> >
>> > Joana Varon Ferraz
>> > @joana_varon
>> > PGP 0x016B8E73
>> >
>> >
>>  > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/7b78e1f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Global-MSH-Conference-Brazil[3].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 121413 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/7b78e1f9/attachment.docx>

From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Nov 12 13:24:09 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:24:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <E1Vg0UE-0001WL-Ij@igcaucus.org>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
	<CAJqNAHC5-FTLGOTj=q=dXc975HfF-Zb=-uePpeh+4W1NrcoK9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>
	<54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org>
	<527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org>
	<527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net>
	<20131110124021.E3FDD3287CC@a2knetwork.org>
	<CADFgh13bQ+VgOVas-WcKPnZeMW6s0s4_+-gtfozmmRSVmfnz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADFgh131MH-oqC=QCpWvA=POcL6z3vfu0kbHqMbT7doRSk5n4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0C110D1-168F-42D0-8780-45F6179CD1D8@arin.net>
	<CACTo+v-r_fi0qB+yYDXC8i=aHgQMVKWxShGvCHY3B-Zj9BV42Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1Vg0UE-0001WL-Ij@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9wnkPBEnuXwNjeF7BzPRKLz5X8994aiS1vA4GLue7vCA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear JFC,


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:01 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> Dear Mawaki,
> two comments:
>
> At 20:28 10/11/2013, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>> #3 That procedure does not have to be carried out publicly on a
>> discussion list such as these ones --for, among other things, the safety
>> reasons and possible risks that have already been mentioned. A structure
>> may be put in place (NomCom?) to receive such statements.
>>
>
> We know from experience there only are public discussions, with the help
> of NSA and/or wikileaks and co. As E.S (Eric Schmidt, not Edward Snowden)
> puts it: if you do not want something to be published on the internet do
> not do it.
>

Right! Except that I am pretty sure whatever people would have to disclose
in a case like this would have been already communicated through some other
email exchanges, say, between them and their sources of funding. I believe
it's always a trade-off between the stake (and benefit) one has in finding
out and the cost of finding out. That cost is somehow raised by sending the
information to a limited group of trusted professional individuals, and
further raised by encrypted the concerned communications. But there will
never going to be 100 per cent secrecy, we agree on that.

>
>
>  there are basically three ways for having money: i) you sell something,
>> goods or services; ii) you tax someone else; or iii) someone chooses to
>> give you the money for whatever reason, possibly including a service you
>> didn't even set out to sell. In CS we do at least a little bit of the three
>> --through grant proposals or consultancy, member dues (albeit with less
>> dire consequences than defaulting on your income tax), and fundraising or
>> donations CS orgs receive. But it looks like the latter category is what
>> supports the most CS advocacy activities. That makes you think twice about
>> where we actually are on the power map. Maybe there is some solace to be
>> found in the fact that many of the sources CS orgs get money from are also
>> part of CS, to begin with: private citizens who once were industrious
>> enough and with enough ingenuity to become wealthy and set up foundations
>> or other charity orgs. Short of that, CS would perhaps have to receive the
>> bulk of its money from the people who tax other people.
>>
>
> The origin of the money is not a problem. The problem is the
> non-disclosure.
>

Again, agree with that. That's why the above section of my message you're
referring to was not integrated as part of my core points but in manner of
concluding reflection. And I mentioned the perspective that it provides
about CS in terms of our place on the power map. That was all my
observation was intended for, no more no less.



> There are several ways around that can be explored:
>
> * a CS oath, as for the Olympics.
> * the sponsorship to be disclosed at registration.
> * the creation of a CSFoundation to collect and attribute fundings in a
> fairly ballanced manner and published policy.
>   Its CSnomcom list would gather reps from all the participating CS
> organizations.
>

Interesting suggestions, especially the last one. Isn't that the model BB's
approach is hinting at (except that it is not a foundation and it's limited
to BB coalition/ participants/ members --whatever applies)? I'm just
asking... While a significant portion of groups like these are
organizations with their own funding and programs for working (if only
partly) on things that are related to issues we are concerned with here,
individual membership are just are valuable and as legitimate. Therefore,
it becomes clear to me that there is some discrepancy to reckon with in
claiming some identity --as in "global CS"-- for these groups if there is
no funding mechanisms (and clear governance mechanisms, for that matter) at
that same level of such global identity. Otherwise, as is currently the
case, we become at critical moments of decisions and actions reduced to an
opportune coalition of whoever has gotten the resources to show up, without
any sense of representativeness whatsoever.

Best,

Mawaki

>
> jfc
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/845d41f8/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Nov 12 15:22:15 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:22:15 -0800
Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE
 REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
Message-ID: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com>

As we all know the Internet Governance space is becoming a very hot topic
and subject to increasing scrutiny, internal manoeuvering and external
intervention. 

This isn't at all surprising given the vast, even world altering resources
of wealth and power (both of the passive informational and aggressive
cyberwar varieties) that are potentially being affected.

Any adjustment, however minor in the overall (governance or other) ecology
of the Internet now has likely ramifications impacting everyone,
everywhere, and in a vast multitude of ways both visible and invisible.

Notably, the overwhelming thrust from a variety of directions is that the
form that this Internet Governance takes is to be "multi-stakeholder" where
the "stakeholders" are roughly defined as governments, the technical
community, the private sector and civil society.

The recent Snowden revelations have shaken the on-going rather comfortable
and even Pollyanna-ish sense that the overall deployment of the Internet was
somehow being done in a manner and with effects that were supportive of the
broad well-being of humanity.

The revelations have for many shattered this belief along with the trust
that underlay so many of the relationships and transactions on which the
Internet is built and continues to operate. This framework of trust has been
in in the words of many at the recent IETF meeting, "attacked",  and for a
significant proportion of those thinking of such matters it has been fatally
undermined.

The Technical Community appears to be still reeling from the discovery that
the "good faith" of many of those that they considered colleagues and
partners was in fact "bad faith"; and the associated interventions were in
various instances undertaken not in the interests of humanity as a whole but
rather in support of narrow and self-serving national (and it would appear
corporate) interests.

The further revelations of the systematic incursions into the internal
technical operations of certain US based Internet mega-corporations has
evidently resulted in both anger and an associated recognition on their part
that the agencies and interests involved were not operating in a manner in
keeping with normally recognized business practices and interests.

It is thus astonishing that Civil Society, in the IG context the weakest and
least resourced of the "stakeholders", should be asked to accept on "good
faith" that its activities and on-going deliberation will not have been
subverted in precisely the same ways and in support of the same interests as
have been the on-going activities of the Technical and Business Sector
stakeholders.

In fact it would be astonishing in the process of subverting the Internet to
certain national and corporate interests, if CS as a key component of
Internet Governance were to have been overlooked.

The sad but I think inevitable conclusion is that  I can see no basis on
which to have continued "trust" in the various CS institutions or activities
since I see no basis on which I can determine the good/bad faith of the
various actors/interveners in those spaces. 

While I can see a basis for finding collaborators and like-minded folks to
pursue specific activities/interventions based on a clear articulation of
shared norms/visions, beyond that I see little basis for going forward in
the current CS formulations and significant dangers more generally if the
current CS spaces are taken as sole or even significant representations of
the policy positions of global CS in relation to Internet Governance.  

(It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and
celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for Internet
Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the Internet age)
needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost.

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e
nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/

M




From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Tue Nov 12 16:01:28 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:01:28 -0500
Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits]
 DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com>
References: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA_jUexNZ+q7nodKmtGyjnK2Q2+dvH0OS_xcm0Dbf-Hzrw@mail.gmail.com>

I certainly don't want to even begin to try to solve for all the problems
we face.  And I fully understand the outrage at recent revelations, plus
the desire to focus on transparency as a means to build trust.  At the same
time, I myself am happy to "opt in" to a group like Best Bits that seeks to
take concrete steps to address important issues, and of necessity requires
me to trust that others who opt in do so in good faith.  If I find that
faith to be misplaced based on the actions of others, I will be
disappointed and seek another platform to participate on.  In the meantime,
I am comfortable working with the loose coalition of groups that has been
coming together around the Best Bits platform.  And I certainly can
understand that others may make a different decision about participating in
this endeavor.  I'm not sure I see a reason to continue the same
conversation we've had for the last few weeks.  Maybe those who want to
participate in Best Bits as it currently is constituted can do so, and
others can just drop out and quite complaining about it.


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> As we all know the Internet Governance space is becoming a very hot topic
> and subject to increasing scrutiny, internal manoeuvering and external
> intervention.
>
> This isn't at all surprising given the vast, even world altering resources
> of wealth and power (both of the passive informational and aggressive
> cyberwar varieties) that are potentially being affected.
>
> Any adjustment, however minor in the overall (governance or other) ecology
> of the Internet now has likely ramifications impacting everyone,
> everywhere, and in a vast multitude of ways both visible and invisible.
>
> Notably, the overwhelming thrust from a variety of directions is that the
> form that this Internet Governance takes is to be "multi-stakeholder" where
> the "stakeholders" are roughly defined as governments, the technical
> community, the private sector and civil society.
>
> The recent Snowden revelations have shaken the on-going rather comfortable
> and even Pollyanna-ish sense that the overall deployment of the Internet
> was
> somehow being done in a manner and with effects that were supportive of the
> broad well-being of humanity.
>
> The revelations have for many shattered this belief along with the trust
> that underlay so many of the relationships and transactions on which the
> Internet is built and continues to operate. This framework of trust has
> been
> in in the words of many at the recent IETF meeting, "attacked",  and for a
> significant proportion of those thinking of such matters it has been
> fatally
> undermined.
>
> The Technical Community appears to be still reeling from the discovery that
> the "good faith" of many of those that they considered colleagues and
> partners was in fact "bad faith"; and the associated interventions were in
> various instances undertaken not in the interests of humanity as a whole
> but
> rather in support of narrow and self-serving national (and it would appear
> corporate) interests.
>
> The further revelations of the systematic incursions into the internal
> technical operations of certain US based Internet mega-corporations has
> evidently resulted in both anger and an associated recognition on their
> part
> that the agencies and interests involved were not operating in a manner in
> keeping with normally recognized business practices and interests.
>
> It is thus astonishing that Civil Society, in the IG context the weakest
> and
> least resourced of the "stakeholders", should be asked to accept on "good
> faith" that its activities and on-going deliberation will not have been
> subverted in precisely the same ways and in support of the same interests
> as
> have been the on-going activities of the Technical and Business Sector
> stakeholders.
>
> In fact it would be astonishing in the process of subverting the Internet
> to
> certain national and corporate interests, if CS as a key component of
> Internet Governance were to have been overlooked.
>
> The sad but I think inevitable conclusion is that  I can see no basis on
> which to have continued "trust" in the various CS institutions or
> activities
> since I see no basis on which I can determine the good/bad faith of the
> various actors/interveners in those spaces.
>
> While I can see a basis for finding collaborators and like-minded folks to
> pursue specific activities/interventions based on a clear articulation of
> shared norms/visions, beyond that I see little basis for going forward in
> the current CS formulations and significant dangers more generally if the
> current CS spaces are taken as sole or even significant representations of
> the policy positions of global CS in relation to Internet Governance.
>
> (It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and
> celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for Internet
> Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the Internet age)
> needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost.
>
>
> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e
> nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-enemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/42896530/attachment.htm>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Tue Nov 12 16:17:50 2013
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:17:50 -0500
Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits]
 DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA_jUexNZ+q7nodKmtGyjnK2Q2+dvH0OS_xcm0Dbf-Hzrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com> <CA+4KnA_jUexNZ+q7nodKmtGyjnK2Q2+dvH0OS_xcm0Dbf-Hzrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52829AFE.6060003@softwarefreedom.org>

In complete agreement with Gene!

On 11/12/2013 04:01 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
> I certainly don't want to even begin to try to solve for all the
> problems we face.  And I fully understand the outrage at recent
> revelations, plus the desire to focus on transparency as a means to
> build trust.  At the same time, I myself am happy to "opt in" to a
> group like Best Bits that seeks to take concrete steps to address
> important issues, and of necessity requires me to trust that others
> who opt in do so in good faith.  If I find that faith to be misplaced
> based on the actions of others, I will be disappointed and seek
> another platform to participate on.  In the meantime, I am comfortable
> working with the loose coalition of groups that has been coming
> together around the Best Bits platform.  And I certainly can
> understand that others may make a different decision about
> participating in this endeavor.  I'm not sure I see a reason to
> continue the same conversation we've had for the last few weeks. 
> Maybe those who want to participate in Best Bits as it currently is
> constituted can do so, and others can just drop out and quite
> complaining about it.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     As we all know the Internet Governance space is becoming a very
>     hot topic
>     and subject to increasing scrutiny, internal manoeuvering and external
>     intervention.
>
>     This isn't at all surprising given the vast, even world altering
>     resources
>     of wealth and power (both of the passive informational and aggressive
>     cyberwar varieties) that are potentially being affected.
>
>     Any adjustment, however minor in the overall (governance or other)
>     ecology
>     of the Internet now has likely ramifications impacting everyone,
>     everywhere, and in a vast multitude of ways both visible and
>     invisible.
>
>     Notably, the overwhelming thrust from a variety of directions is
>     that the
>     form that this Internet Governance takes is to be
>     "multi-stakeholder" where
>     the "stakeholders" are roughly defined as governments, the technical
>     community, the private sector and civil society.
>
>     The recent Snowden revelations have shaken the on-going rather
>     comfortable
>     and even Pollyanna-ish sense that the overall deployment of the
>     Internet was
>     somehow being done in a manner and with effects that were
>     supportive of the
>     broad well-being of humanity.
>
>     The revelations have for many shattered this belief along with the
>     trust
>     that underlay so many of the relationships and transactions on
>     which the
>     Internet is built and continues to operate. This framework of
>     trust has been
>     in in the words of many at the recent IETF meeting, "attacked",
>      and for a
>     significant proportion of those thinking of such matters it has
>     been fatally
>     undermined.
>
>     The Technical Community appears to be still reeling from the
>     discovery that
>     the "good faith" of many of those that they considered colleagues and
>     partners was in fact "bad faith"; and the associated interventions
>     were in
>     various instances undertaken not in the interests of humanity as a
>     whole but
>     rather in support of narrow and self-serving national (and it
>     would appear
>     corporate) interests.
>
>     The further revelations of the systematic incursions into the internal
>     technical operations of certain US based Internet
>     mega-corporations has
>     evidently resulted in both anger and an associated recognition on
>     their part
>     that the agencies and interests involved were not operating in a
>     manner in
>     keeping with normally recognized business practices and interests.
>
>     It is thus astonishing that Civil Society, in the IG context the
>     weakest and
>     least resourced of the "stakeholders", should be asked to accept
>     on "good
>     faith" that its activities and on-going deliberation will not have
>     been
>     subverted in precisely the same ways and in support of the same
>     interests as
>     have been the on-going activities of the Technical and Business Sector
>     stakeholders.
>
>     In fact it would be astonishing in the process of subverting the
>     Internet to
>     certain national and corporate interests, if CS as a key component of
>     Internet Governance were to have been overlooked.
>
>     The sad but I think inevitable conclusion is that  I can see no
>     basis on
>     which to have continued "trust" in the various CS institutions or
>     activities
>     since I see no basis on which I can determine the good/bad faith
>     of the
>     various actors/interveners in those spaces.
>
>     While I can see a basis for finding collaborators and like-minded
>     folks to
>     pursue specific activities/interventions based on a clear
>     articulation of
>     shared norms/visions, beyond that I see little basis for going
>     forward in
>     the current CS formulations and significant dangers more generally
>     if the
>     current CS spaces are taken as sole or even significant
>     representations of
>     the policy positions of global CS in relation to Internet Governance.
>
>     (It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and
>     celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for
>     Internet
>     Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the
>     Internet age)
>     needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost.
>
>     http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e
>     nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/
>     <http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-enemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/>
>
>     M
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>


-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Director-International Practice
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director 
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126 
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/75413c31/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov 12 16:20:35 2013
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:20:35 +0000
Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits]
 DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com>
References: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2621D9A7-F2EE-4DDB-89B1-984B49F8644B@arin.net>

On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:22 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> (It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and
> celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for Internet
> Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the Internet age)
> needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost.

Michael - 
 
 It has been nearly a month since that blogpost - 

>>   "Can we in fact proceed or accept the outcome of any MS process without a very close re-examination and structuring of those processes; that is, to develop a means for providing appropriate safeguards against contamination, subversion, distortion or interest capture by or on behalf of one or another of the significant players ...

 My question is: "Have you now conducted such a reexamination, and/or have
 you developed any means for providing appropriate safeguards against 
 contamination, subversion, distortion or interest capture?"

 I stand by willing and able to help, but as I noted in my reply, I am
 not aware of any magic solution to this problem, and can only suggest
 that 'having all parties speak up and “go on record” with their beliefs 
 and assumptions might (over time) provide some protection against actual
 bad actors in the process.'

 If you have come up with any better mechanisms for multi-stakeholder 
 participation (ones that avoid some of the risks noted above), it would 
 very be helpful if you could share your insights.  Until then, we are
 left to muddle along with the mechanisms and practices that are presently 
 in place.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Nov 12 16:52:24 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 13:52:24 -0800
Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits]
 DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <2621D9A7-F2EE-4DDB-89B1-984B49F8644B@arin.net>
References: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com> <2621D9A7-F2EE-4DDB-89B1-984B49F8644B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <02b601cedff1$7947bce0$6bd736a0$@gmail.com>

Fair question John and I should  say that I did notice a rather more nuanced
approach to the discussion of MSism at least by some in Bali.

I think one way to start is by not referring to MSism without some sort of
qualification as for example limiting it to areas concerning consultation,
discussion or process and not having it refer to "governance" per se.

A second way to proceed is to delimit applying MSism (e.g. as in having
those directly involved in the outcome of the decisions having a role in
making the decisions) to those areas having to do with the governance or
management of various of the technical aspects of the Internet and not the
more traditional areas of public policy e.g. taxation, various human rights
elements, costing etc.

A third way is to recognize that to all intents and purposes CS in its
current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and
accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The
implications of taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism
is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant
efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective
and legitimate partner.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:21 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: bestbits; Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits]
DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society

On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:22 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> (It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and 
> celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for 
> Internet Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the 
> Internet age) needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost.

Michael - 
 
 It has been nearly a month since that blogpost - 

>>   "Can we in fact proceed or accept the outcome of any MS process without
a very close re-examination and structuring of those processes; that is, to
develop a means for providing appropriate safeguards against contamination,
subversion, distortion or interest capture by or on behalf of one or another
of the significant players ...

 My question is: "Have you now conducted such a reexamination, and/or have
you developed any means for providing appropriate safeguards against
contamination, subversion, distortion or interest capture?"

 I stand by willing and able to help, but as I noted in my reply, I am  not
aware of any magic solution to this problem, and can only suggest  that
'having all parties speak up and "go on record" with their beliefs  and
assumptions might (over time) provide some protection against actual  bad
actors in the process.'

 If you have come up with any better mechanisms for multi-stakeholder
participation (ones that avoid some of the risks noted above), it would
very be helpful if you could share your insights.  Until then, we are  left
to muddle along with the mechanisms and practices that are presently  in
place.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From joy at apc.org  Tue Nov 12 17:39:03 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:39:03 +1300
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
In-Reply-To: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca>
References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org>

Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general
note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/

regards

Joy Liddicoat

On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Dear people,
>
> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
>
> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
>
> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
> requires periodic revisions.
>
> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
>
> ------
> 72.	We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
>
> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
> stability and development of the Internet.
>
> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
>
> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
> institutions on matters under their purview.
>
> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
> and technical communities.
>
> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
>
> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> developing countries.
>
> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.
>
> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
>
> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> principles in Internet governance processes.
>
> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
>
> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
>
> l) Publish its proceedings.
> ------
>
> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
> forum, not merely a sequence of events.
>
> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
> have been basically ignored by the UN.
>
> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
> expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
>
> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
>
> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
> revealed some worrying weaknesses .
>
> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
> countries.
>
> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
> attached in PDF]
>
> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
> and the WSIS process is inevitable .
>
> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
>
> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
> below.
>
> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
> suggestions:
>
> ------
> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
> Observers
>
> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
> responsibilities of all participants;
>
> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
> Declaration of Principles;
>
> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
>
> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
>
> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
> Enhanced Cooperation;
>
> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
> as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
> in a top down manner;
>
> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
>
> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
>
> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
> larger IGF community;
>
> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
> IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
> Internet governance and management organizations;
>
> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
> within their mandates;
>
> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
> footing;
>
> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
> participate in the IGF.
>
> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
> ------
>
> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
>
> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
>
> ------
> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
> working methods such as remote participation.
>
> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
>
> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
> affordable access for all stakeholders.
>
> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
> ------
>
> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.


From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Nov 12 19:34:45 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:34:45 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBGygXmcLq1y5xGYEdPYRm0wBduprU2etfWhTGA2DcDVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca>
	<5282AE07.5000308@apc.org>
	<CAJwbTiBGygXmcLq1y5xGYEdPYRm0wBduprU2etfWhTGA2DcDVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdpqweoiQx579-S8KO1OfgtdeATCJN_V3c8C4RfnV7aHw@mail.gmail.com>

hi all
I think we need a better way to list working topics and moving work based
on who wants to help with what
should best bits have a wiki for work by working groups
formed spontaneously based on what people want to work together on?
i feel a lot get lost in the list and people get distracted over procedural
issues and some times too many contributions - which are good - but some
times have the effect of burying the working proposals
within the Wikimedia groups, this "task forces" work well...
one examples among many from that community is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council of course the goal is different, but much is
how we fix our knowledge and develop work together in a transparent
platform, that also allows debate and a picture of the history of it)
What Carlos proposes demands a lot of work and focus, and since it is hard
to set calls, we need to find ways to work asynchronously
This idea would also work for the working-groups formed at the Best Bits mtg
just a thought ...since this list is a high-traffic list and we could
rethink what needs a working space for work and follow-ups and what
actually needs to circulate/be discussed in the list


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Joy for sharing your summary with us. This is very useful. I
> would invite all IGC subscribers to read Carlos, Joy and Avri's posts of
> the WGEC as it is very useful.
>
> The #WGEC on Twitter that was used during the meeting will also show the
> trail of discussions and thoughts. Joy I am wondering about the possibility
> of a Webinar where those of you who attended the WGEC can form a Panel
> either through a Webinar or a Google Hangout where you can talk about the
> recent WGEC meeting and take questions from us.
>
> If someone from the IGC would like to volunteer to look into this, it
> would be useful.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general
>> note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Joy Liddicoat
>>
>> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> > Dear people,
>> >
>> > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
>> > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
>> > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
>> > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
>> > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
>> >
>> > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
>> > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
>> > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
>> > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
>> > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
>> >
>> > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
>> > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
>> > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
>> > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
>> > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
>> > requires periodic revisions.
>> >
>> > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
>> > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
>> >
>> > ------
>> > 72.   We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
>> > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
>> > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>> > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
>> >
>> > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
>> > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
>> > stability and development of the Internet.
>> >
>> > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
>> > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
>> > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
>> >
>> > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
>> > institutions on matters under their purview.
>> >
>> > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
>> > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
>> > and technical communities.
>> >
>> > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
>> > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
>> >
>> > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
>> > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
>> > developing countries.
>> >
>> > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
>> > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
>> recommendations.
>> >
>> > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
>> > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
>> >
>> > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
>> > principles in Internet governance processes.
>> >
>> > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
>> >
>> > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
>> > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
>> >
>> > l) Publish its proceedings.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
>> > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
>> > forum, not merely a sequence of events.
>> >
>> > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
>> > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
>> > have been basically ignored by the UN.
>> >
>> > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
>> > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
>> > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
>> > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
>> > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
>> > expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
>> >
>> > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
>> > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
>> > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
>> >
>> > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
>> > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>> > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
>> > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
>> > revealed some worrying weaknesses .
>> >
>> > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
>> > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
>> > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
>> > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
>> > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
>> > countries.
>> >
>> > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
>> > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
>> > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
>> > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
>> > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
>> > attached in PDF]
>> >
>> > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
>> > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
>> > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
>> > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
>> > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
>> > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
>> > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
>> > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
>> > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
>> > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
>> > and the WSIS process is inevitable .
>> >
>> > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
>> > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
>> > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
>> > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
>> > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
>> >
>> > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
>> > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
>> > below.
>> >
>> > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
>> > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
>> > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
>> > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
>> > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
>> > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
>> > suggestions:
>> >
>> > ------
>> > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
>> > Observers
>> >
>> > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
>> > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
>> > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
>> > responsibilities of all participants;
>> >
>> > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
>> > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
>> > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
>> > Declaration of Principles;
>> >
>> > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
>> > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
>> >
>> > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
>> > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
>> >
>> > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
>> > Enhanced Cooperation;
>> >
>> > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
>> > as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
>> > in a top down manner;
>> >
>> > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
>> > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
>> > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
>> >
>> > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
>> > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
>> >
>> > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
>> > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
>> > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
>> > larger IGF community;
>> >
>> > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
>> > IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
>> > Internet governance and management organizations;
>> >
>> > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
>> > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
>> > within their mandates;
>> >
>> > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
>> > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
>> > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
>> > footing;
>> >
>> > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
>> > participate in the IGF.
>> >
>> > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
>> > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
>> > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
>> > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
>> > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
>> > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
>> > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
>> > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
>> >
>> > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
>> > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
>> >
>> > ------
>> > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
>> > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
>> > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
>> > working methods such as remote participation.
>> >
>> > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
>> > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
>> > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
>> >
>> > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
>> > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
>> > affordable access for all stakeholders.
>> >
>> > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
>> > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
>> > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
>> > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
>> > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
>> > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
>> >
>> > fraternal regards
>> >
>> > --c.a.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/64e5bde7/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Tue Nov 12 20:18:17 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 20:18:17 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Report back with some options for open/closed lists
Message-ID: <CALU7RQZomqVCnmDjG-5U7WU14-kZgHfKJ_-6RU0bNARvXur76A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Taking into account the debate here about using a civil society only list
for strategic discussions, I'm reporting back from some discussions among
the interim steering committee* on different options for moving forward.
Here are the some options we came up with:

   1. Everything on the public list (i.e. status quo)
   2. Using the open list as the default, and have the option of moving
   strategic conversations to the private list
   3. Using the open list as the default, and starting issue-specific lists
   for strategic discussions among civil society. This would follow the model
   of the [EC] list that was used to prepare Best Bits' submission to WGEC
   (welcoming suggestions to improve that model). Drafting and strategic
   discussions took place on the closed list and were reported back to the
   main list.

Most of us on steering prefer option 3, but we could not come to an
agreement on whether or not the archives of emails on civil society list
should be public or only available to the members of the list. The benefits
of having public archives would be  transparency and avoiding the exclusion
of anyone who wanted to join the list but was not aware of it. The drawback
would be that public archives would diminish the value of the list as a
private space for civil society to strategize.

What we propose is to try out the subject-specific list option with a new
list for the Brazil meeting (i.e. summit at lists.bestbits.net) and invite
anyone who is interested in participating and who self-identifies as civil
society to join. Trying to use the broadest definition of civil society, we
would suggest that those whose primary affiliation is with a government, an
intergovernmental organization, or corporation not join. Since this is of
course an imperfect definition, we propose to leave it open to all to
subscribe and have an open discussion around any issues regarding
membership that may arise.

In particular we are interested in:

   - What people think about the 3 options
   - Public v. private archives for the subject-specific list option
   - The proposal to move forward with summit at lists.bestbits.net
   - If you think that there may be another workable model we missed
   (please suggest it!)

Please send your feedback, ideas, concerns by the end of the week if
possible either on this thread or to steering at lists.bestbits.net.

We hope this reflects the different points of view that have been expressed
the regarding the need for a civil society only space to strategize and the
need to be inclusive, transparent, and accountable . Looking forward to a
constructive discussion and to collaborating around the challenges ahead.

Kind regards,
Deborah

*Note: the following individuals are members of the interim steering
committee Andrew Puddephatt (Global Partners), Anja Kovacs (Internet and
Democracy Project), Deborah Brown (Access), Jeremy Malcolm (Consumers
International), Joana Varon Ferraz (FGV/CTS), Marianne Franklin
(individual/IRP coalition), Nnenna (World Wide Web Foundation) and Valeria
Betancourt (APC).
-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org
rightscon.org

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/e752d4d9/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 13 00:07:53 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:07:53 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdpqweoiQx579-S8KO1OfgtdeATCJN_V3c8C4RfnV7aHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca>	<5282AE07.5000308@apc.org>	<CAJwbTiBGygXmcLq1y5xGYEdPYRm0wBduprU2etfWhTGA2DcDVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdpqweoiQx579-S8KO1OfgtdeATCJN_V3c8C4RfnV7aHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52830929.2000903@ciroap.org>

On 13/11/13 08:34, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> I think we need a better way to list working topics and moving work
> based on who wants to help with what
> should best bits have a wiki for work by working groups
> formed spontaneously based on what people want to work together on?

There already is a wiki and the ability to create new sub-wikis at will,
though it needs a lot more work (both content, and also to make it
easier to use, eg. enabling the visual editor).  It is at
http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/, and is also linked under "Documents" on
the main Best Bits website.  Currently anyone can create and edit
content there without permission (if abuse becomes a problem, we will
address it).  Meanwhile as JFC Morfin has been reminding us he has also
set up an independent wiki about the summit.

> i feel a lot get lost in the list and people get distracted over
> procedural issues and some times too many contributions - which are
> good - but some times have the effect of burying the working proposals

Agreed.

> What Carlos proposes demands a lot of work and focus, and since it is
> hard to set calls, we need to find ways to work asynchronously 
> This idea would also work for the working-groups formed at the Best
> Bits mtg
> just a thought ...since this list is a high-traffic list and we could
> rethink what needs a working space for work and follow-ups and what
> actually needs to circulate/be discussed in the list

As a first step, I have already committed to putting together a
workplan, which pulls together the work streams from the Bali meeting,
plus what is needed for the Brazil summit and 1net.  Sorry for my delay
in doing that, being really overstretched with various other projects. 
It will help me if those who have been working on such items but who
haven't been reporting back, could do so, so that I can map what is
going on.

I would also like to make something more visual, which could perhaps be
based on the "Visualising the playing field" timeline by Deborah, Lea
and Joana (which we have all agreed was excellent).  An impediment to
this for now is that there is no funding to support this, but I'm
working on that also.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/4a20a44a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/4a20a44a/attachment.sig>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Wed Nov 13 00:07:51 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:07:51 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Report back with some options for open/closed lists
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQZomqVCnmDjG-5U7WU14-kZgHfKJ_-6RU0bNARvXur76A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALU7RQZomqVCnmDjG-5U7WU14-kZgHfKJ_-6RU0bNARvXur76A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgvnMhcv0HOiGYnvdYFGCLbsCPe-AeixCd7X3bojCsQJg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Taking into account the debate here about using a civil society only list
> for strategic discussions, I'm reporting back from some discussions among
> the interim steering committee* on different options for moving forward.
> Here are the some options we came up with:
>
>    1. Everything on the public list (i.e. status quo)
>
>

I prefer #1

>
>    1. Using the open list as the default, and have the option of moving
>    strategic conversations to the private list
>    2. Using the open list as the default, and starting issue-specific
>    lists for strategic discussions among civil society. This would follow the
>    model of the [EC] list that was used to prepare Best Bits' submission to
>    WGEC (welcoming suggestions to improve that model). Drafting and strategic
>    discussions took place on the closed list and were reported back to the
>    main list.
>
> Most of us on steering prefer option 3, but we could not come to an
> agreement on whether or not the archives of emails on civil society list
> should be public or only available to the members of the list. The benefits
> of having public archives would be  transparency and avoiding the exclusion
> of anyone who wanted to join the list but was not aware of it. The drawback
> would be that public archives would diminish the value of the list as a
> private space for civil society to strategize.
>


We should be all about cooperation, collaboration, communication.  Having a
private list seems to suggest that we are in opposition to other
stakeholder groups, or at least that we need to hide something from them.
 They should know that we stand for the public interest.  I just don't
think we have anything to hide.

Plus, I'm already on dozens of IG mailing lists as it is, I'd rather not
add anymore just to keep up with what is going on.

Regards,

McTim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/a50eda63/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 13 00:17:12 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:17:12 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>

On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>
> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly
> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following
> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from
> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to
> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.

I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as an
interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.  Thankfully it
seems that the point has been made on the list that we have already
appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the summit,
thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to arise
that 1net had any part in this appointment.

> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish
> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials
> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital
> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.

So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from yesterday)
for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form a loose
peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives to
other Internet governance processes.[0]

> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business, tech
> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list
> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a
> coalition)

And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly speaking for
the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users, industry,
civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations - we
are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed multi-stakeholder
Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."

There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in pulling
out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for example the
OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses for
Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say "wait and
see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave 1net to
the private sector and tech community, who will certainly overwhelm our
influence in any case.

[0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in a
different thread:

> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective and legitimate partner.


-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/2b1f66a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/2b1f66a1/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 13 00:53:35 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:23:35 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Day 1: Multi-stakeholder Processes and IGF
 Discussion
In-Reply-To: <5279599B.6020402@apc.org>
References: <52635CBD.9080104@apc.org> <07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org> <5275F29B.6030400@itforchange.net> <5276BECA.5070609@apc.org> <5278C766.4070509@itforchange.net> <5279599B.6020402@apc.org>
Message-ID: <528313DF.2060007@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 06 November 2013 02:18 AM, joy wrote:
> thanks Parminder - if you could add those notes to the session 
> summary, that would be great:
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms
>

Joy, thanks for the link. However, As I mention below the discussions 
that I describe took place *not* in the multistakeholder session we did 
together on the first day, but in the last session on the second day on 
BB related process issues, held together by Jeremy and Anja...

parminder

> cheers
> Joy
> On 5/11/2013 11:24 p.m., parminder wrote:
>> Hi Joy
>>
>> I refer to interactions during the last plenary session on processes. 
>> It wasnt in the small groups sessions. The exchange about the need 
>> for clearer/ formal processes versus we should not become too formal 
>> and inflexible continued over quite some time, involving many 
>> interventions.
>>
>> As for the details you ask for - it begun I think with a demand that 
>> those closely associated with BB processes be upfront about their 
>> organisational details, funding support etc so that members knew 
>> clearly who is who and so on. To this was added request to be more 
>> clear about goals of the coalition (included if needed through a 
>> charter) and the need to actively reach out to bring in those who 
>> werent here... It was proposed that BB works as a membership driven 
>> organisation, with members driven processes/ decisions. There was 
>> demands for greaer clarity about how decisions are made and who made 
>> them....
>>
>> Regards, parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday 04 November 2013 02:53 AM, joy wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder - i need a clarification please... In relation to the 
>>> Best Bits quality mark idea, you wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>> "when some process issues were raised there were many people 
>>> labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism"
>>> I do not recall this from the large group discussion - but perhaps 
>>> it was in the small groups or was it missed in the meeting notes? To 
>>> assist, can you please be more specific about the actual concerns 
>>> that were raised and those labelling them in this way? It is 
>>> difficult to assess your comments in detail without the particulars .
>>> thanks
>>> Joy
>>>
>>> On 3/11/2013 7:52 p.m., parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 22 October 2013 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> On 20/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>   * A *fluid working group* (to use one of our new catchphrases)
>>>>>     could work online to distill it down into a shorter statement
>>>>>     of principles, and get underway on that now with the aim of
>>>>>     making at least some further progress by the time of our
>>>>>     workshop on Thursday.  Would you be willing to be a focal
>>>>>     point for the fluid working group?
>>>>>   * For the longer-term, we could try to develop these principles
>>>>>     into a standard of our own, that we could apply to various
>>>>>     Internet governance institutions.  During a workshop yesterday
>>>>>     on metrics of multi-stakeholderism, I first raised this idea
>>>>>     as a kind of "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes.
>>>>>      As many people have noted during this IGF already, everything
>>>>>     from the IETF to ICANN to the IGF is called a
>>>>>     "multi-stakeholder process", yet they are so very different.
>>>>>      A *Best Bits "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes*
>>>>>     could help to provide a more useful benchmark for these
>>>>>     processes than the WSIS process criteria alone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be able to do any such kind of quality labelling, BB would 
>>>> itself first have to follow very high quality processes. However at 
>>>> the f2f meeting when some process issues were raised there were 
>>>> many people labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and 
>>>> formalism.  So, not sure how we would resolve the apparent 
>>>> contradiction here.....
>>>>
>>>> I do think that when people put themselves up for public roles, 
>>>> especially in very political processes like the kind we all are 
>>>> engaged in, they need to be held to very high levels of openness, 
>>>> transparency, accountability and so on, and these things should not 
>>>> be dismissed as unneeded formalism. Democratic public life has been 
>>>> carefully imbued with a lot of such 'formalism' over the centuries 
>>>> precisely because of this reason.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the same fluid working group could take on both objectives 
>>>>> in turn.  What do people think?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement 
>>>>> knowledge hub 
>>>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>>
>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | 
>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>>>
>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email 
>>>>> unless necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. 
>>>>> For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/f8516569/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 13 01:46:08 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:16:08 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <52824742.3040002@cdt.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com> <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp> <CALTAiTo9EWiUp5V3z=LYtKnh7TpUH7pLxPYkVga6W-eQ+tFspA@mail.gmail.com> <52824742.3040002@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <52832030.2020707@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 12 November 2013 08:50 PM, matthew shears wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Could someone point us to the latest version of the 1net framing document?

Yes, would like to know what are the agreed objectives and directions 
currently... thanks, parminder
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 12/11/2013 15:18, Joana Varon wrote:
>> Good point, Adam. Please, remember that this quick summary is a 
>> report on the the strategy developed just within the dialogue/1net.
>>
>> The Brazilian government is still to delivery an statement with 
>> details for engagement, but the spirit, as far as I know, is that it 
>> will be open and inclusive. Please, remember that we have even 
>> proposed to the Minister of Communications to open a platform for 
>> public consultation and the idea was welcomed.
>> Let us develop further the conversations with the Brazilian 
>> government to search for more on this.
>>
>> best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp 
>> <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear Joana,
>>
>>     Thank you very much.
>>
>>     Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali,
>>     representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all
>>     to help organize and for all to participate: an open invitation
>>     to an open meeting.  Was this discussed on the list, and they
>>     instead decided on a more limited steering committee?  (I will
>>     try to look at the archives).
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>
>>     > Dear all,
>>     >
>>     > Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a
>>     few days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find
>>     here quick updates on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue,
>>     which now is being called dialogue or 1net:
>>     >
>>     > Wisely, the archive and the subscription process to the list is
>>     now open to anyone. Subscriptions here
>>     https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. Archives
>>     accessible here https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
>>     >
>>     > Also, a website called 1net.org <http://1net.org> was put in
>>     place and sent by Adiel to the list, who asked for comments. A
>>     note will go out in the next days to those who attended wider
>>     meetings in Bali to sign up via the website.
>>     >
>>     > Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>     >
>>     > - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
>>     particularly business, remains calling meeting). For that, the
>>     dialogue, following our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have
>>     3 representatives from each stakeholder (civil society, business,
>>     technical community), to identify 3 representatives to
>>     participate in the preparations.
>>     >
>>     > - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
>>     establish a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare
>>     any materials for discussion/coordinate with the broader
>>     community.  On my perception, reaching balance on this steering
>>     committee will be vital to assess our level of engagement in the
>>     dialogue. The issue of representativeness of CS will knock again
>>     on our doors.
>>     >
>>     > Hope it helps
>>     >
>>     > All the best,
>>     >
>>     > joana
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > --
>>     > --
>>     >
>>     > Joana Varon Ferraz
>>     > @joana_varon
>>     > PGP 0x016B8E73
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > ____________________________________________________________
>>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> -- 
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/caddf7dd/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 13 01:51:13 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:21:13 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com> <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <52832161.5010105@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 13 November 2013 10:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>
>> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly 
>> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following 
>> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from 
>> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to 
>> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
>
> I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as an 
> interface between civil society and the Brazil summit. Thankfully it 
> seems that the point has been made on the list that we have already 
> appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the summit, 
> thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to 
> arise that 1net had any part in this appointment.

Joana and others of the interim liaison committee (with Brazil gov for 
the Brazil meeting),

While we are happy to do any kind of lateral dialogues with anyone and 
everyone on Internet (and other) , please do let the 1net group know 
that the overwhelming (happy to be corrected) view in the civil society 
is that we will like to have a direct liaison with the hosts of the 
Brazil meet (which is the Brazil gov).

Also, please do let Brazil gov know this fact in no uncertain terms. And 
please do it urgently and share their response with us.... I told the 
Brazil gov reps in Geneva that this is what we seek, but I have this 
feeling that Brazil gov is really not very clear whether civil society 
would directly deal with it, or through this so called coalition, 1net. 
So we need to make this clear asap, and in the clearest and strongest 
terms. The lack of clarity on this issue is not serving our interests.

Thanks, parminder

>
>> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to 
>> establish a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any 
>> materials for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On 
>> my perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be 
>> vital to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of 
>> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
>
> So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from 
> yesterday) for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to 
> form a loose peak structure that would nominate civil society 
> representatives to other Internet governance processes.[0]
>
>> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business, 
>> tech and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference 
>> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list 
>> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just 
>> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a 
>> coalition)
>
> And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly speaking for 
> the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users, industry, 
> civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations - 
> we are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed 
> multi-stakeholder Internet governance framework to serve our next 
> generations."
>
> There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in 
> pulling out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for 
> example the OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU 
> Licenses for Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who 
> say "wait and see", but my current inclination remains that we should 
> leave 1net to the private sector and tech community, who will 
> certainly overwhelm our influence in any case.
>
> [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in a 
> different thread:
>
>> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective and legitimate partner.
>
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/be0abded/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 13 01:51:38 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:51:38 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Day 1: Multi-stakeholder Processes and IGF
 Discussion
In-Reply-To: <528313DF.2060007@itforchange.net>
References: <52635CBD.9080104@apc.org> <07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org> <5275F29B.6030400@itforchange.net> <5276BECA.5070609@apc.org> <5278C766.4070509@itforchange.net> <5279599B.6020402@apc.org> <528313DF.2060007@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4E5CE9DB-9E74-4990-98AE-BB96AD09FA21@ciroap.org>

On 13 Nov 2013, at 1:53 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday 06 November 2013 02:18 AM, joy wrote:
>> thanks Parminder - if you could add those notes to the session summary, that would be great:
>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms
> 
> Joy, thanks for the link. However, As I mention below the discussions that I describe took place *not* in the multistakeholder session we did together on the first day, but in the last session on the second day on BB related process issues, held together by Jeremy and Anja...

The notes of that session are in the main etherpad of the meeting at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bestbits2013. But it records, correctly I think, that there was little support to change Best Bits from a platform into an organisation. 

-- 
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}'
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/e8afb47e/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Nov 13 02:35:05 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:35:05 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <52832161.5010105@itforchange.net>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
	<52832161.5010105@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20131113083505.323020e5@quill>

Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Joana and others of the interim liaison committee (with Brazil gov
> for the Brazil meeting),
> 
> While we are happy to do any kind of lateral dialogues with anyone
> and everyone on Internet (and other) , please do let the 1net group
> know that the overwhelming (happy to be corrected) view in the civil
> society is that we will like to have a direct liaison with the hosts
> of the Brazil meet (which is the Brazil gov).
> 
> Also, please do let Brazil gov know this fact in no uncertain terms.
> And please do it urgently and share their response with us.... I told
> the Brazil gov reps in Geneva that this is what we seek, but I have
> this feeling that Brazil gov is really not very clear whether civil
> society would directly deal with it, or through this so called
> coalition, 1net. So we need to make this clear asap, and in the
> clearest and strongest terms. The lack of clarity on this issue is
> not serving our interests.

+1

Greetings,
Norbert

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 13 04:48:20 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:18:20 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be Enough for the US to
 Restore Its Internet Ethics
Message-ID: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/sacrificing-the-icann-wil_b_4259217.html


  Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be Enough for the US to Restore Its
  Internet Ethics

Jean-Christophe Nothias 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias>

We were only a few among media to realize, back in 2012, how arrogant 
and powerful was the US over its dominance of the Internet, and not just 
its control over the root servers and the domain name management. Policy 
making was at stake! Since December 2012, we know it as the US 
120-member delegation to the World Conference on International 
Telecommunication (WCIT) left the room where over 190 nation states were 
convene to discuss terms of progress over agreement in international 
telecommunication connectivity. Its major reason was: "We do not want to 
see the word 'Internet' appearing in an updated telecommunication 
intergovernmental treaty. If the US accepts this, freedom of expression 
over Internet will be at stake." Everyone remembers how a large UN 
bashing campaign was orchestrated hand in hand by US officials (State 
Department, Department of Trade, Congress....) and the US Internet 
robber barons of our time, under the leadership of Google and the 
support of the subsidized heroic 'Internet Freedom Fighters', a naming 
closer to a talibanesque approach than of a human rights defender's view.

Today, after Snowden brought evidence to the world, citizens have learnt 
their lesson: we are all terrorist, not to forget the German Chancellor, 
the Brazilian President, you and me as well. Who can now trust the US on 
respecting simple rules over neutrality, privacy, and honesty? Is this 
part of the 9/11 legacy and the Bush administration ethics? Indeed, had 
all nation states signed an international telecommunication treaty, the 
US Democracy would have either ruined its own diplomatic signature or 
stopped its global spying. So far no international treaty is protecting 
global citizens from such abuse, maybe a reason to understand why Edward 
Snowden decided to spoke truth to power. The citizens of the United 
States have had a few or no reaction, hesitating between a "I have 
nothing to hide" and a "I don't care if they look into my data; anyway I 
like to exhibit myself in social networks." Maybe they underestimate the 
price to pay for their authorities' choice and conduct.

The reality to be considered has an obvious economic origin and bias, on 
behalf on which the US is using its 'digital sovereignty' over foreign 
players. This 'sovereignty' is expected to help grab precious points of 
future growth and tens of thousands of jobs over the next decades. 
Already the mighty power of the Internet is putting the industry big 
players in a state of permanent stress as they battle to hide their 
profits worldwide starting with the UK, France, Germany, and all 
relevant markets. The gold Internet pipeline is bringing indecent power 
to companies like Google, Verizon, Apple... showing a poor CSR ranking, 
thanks to their ability to avoid paying due tax around the world. Public 
US authorities have also their own trade or debt challenges ahead. All 
of them whether private or public, bet that Internet will bring what 
they need most: profit and tax. If the US has organized its own market 
under the patronage of a few monopolies so precisely described by Susan 
Crawford in her Captive Audience book, many of the international telecom 
competitors are very unpleased with the same arrogant dominancy outside 
the US. Add global spying and abuse of power and you have the perfect 
Molotov cocktail for an international uproar.

This is not to mention the gift made to all dictators around the world 
now celebrating the last US digital tread, a global affront, a present 
that nourishes the villainies the US soldiers are supposedly fighting at 
a heavy cost around the world. Democracy is the 'blond' in dictators' 
favorite jokes. All of this comes with a heavy price to all democrats. 
Any principle that a country pushes to the no-value zone is a very 
expensive asset to conquer back. Indeed, Internet is now part of our 
common geography and politics, and a mirror to any ethical failure.

Even though I am not a fervent Marxist, I would define Internet 
governance more as the superstructure where, beyond national policies, 
are established internationally, public policy, connectivity agreements, 
competition fairness, and digital ethics (first pack goes first...), by 
opposition to the base where corporations and technicians enjoy setting 
things by force of common technological and commercial sense. Both of 
them are not so concerned about public good. Their game is to enjoy the 
most effective code to maximize profits. The fact is that in order to be 
left alone 'ruling' the code, and the digital space revenue, they are 
keen to explain that Internet is a pure decentralized world that hates 
nothing more than to be governed. Jungle and Far-West are always more 
fun for the ones with the guns. "How to govern such a decentralized 
wildness?" ask the defenders of the status quo. In this world of 
'Digital Freedom Fighters' of all kind, the 'enemy' is governance and 
regulation. "Regulation kills innovation." According to these bright 
minds - some of them paid by the Internet robber barons to protect and 
enlarge their baronies - Internet could not be governed except by the 
successful corporations.

Today, foreign countries realize that the US needs to be grounded. The 
big lie about the ungovernable digital space has come to an end, as 
national laws prevail and are about to conflict each other, as more 
investment is required for higher speed and connectivity, as digital 
inequalities between regions and continents are stretching - Google's 
pocket money put into balloons won't fill the Internet holes in Africa, 
when the fortune it is putting in fiber will reinforce Google's power 
over the US market, or emerging countries where Google, Facebook and 
other grab public digital space for little efforts. As any other common 
good, Internet public regulation is needed all over the world. 
International law is not the enemy. Vested interests are the enemy of 
the Netizens. This is getting clearer to many minds, including the ones 
who de facto control the digital world and its industry.

The White House and the US Internet Barons have now two major issues: 
how to calm down their very upset partners and/or competitors, and how 
to avoid a major digital spring that would ruin the current status-quo 
over their domination within the Internet governance - supposedly for 
our own good.

A first idea came regarding the economic issue and it went quite 
un-noticed after the last September G-20 meeting in Saint Petersburg. 
Published as the /Tax/ /Annex/ 
<http://www.g20.org/news/20130906/782776427.html> /to the Saint 
Petersburg G20 Leaders Declaration/, this document claims that:

    "International tax rules, which date back to the 1920's, have not
    kept pace with the changing business environment, including the
    growing importance of intangibles and the digital economy. (...)...
    Issues to be examined include, but are not limited to, the ability
    of a company to have a significant digital presence in the economy
    of another country without being liable to taxation due to the lack
    of nexus under current international rules, the attribution of value
    created from the generation of marketable location-relevant data
    through the use of digital products and services, the
    characterization of income derived from new business models, the
    application of related source rules, and how to ensure the effective
    collection of VAT/GST with respect to the cross-border supply of
    digital goods and services."

Or to put it simply, when a Turkish or Mexican netizen links to a Google 
ad, then the data related to that ad revenue will be taxed by the 
national fiscal authorities. Same idea would therefore applied in all 
G20 countries, as all of them signed for this to be implemented, 
including the US. This is quite a change, and indeed, France has been 
pushing hard on this idea, following the report published in January 
2013 by Pierre Colin and Nicolas Collin for both the /Ministère de 
l'Economie et des Finances/ and the /Ministère du redressement 
productif/ headed by the vocal Arnaud Montebourg. Weeks ago, French 
digital economy minister, Fleur Pellerin argued in an interview given to 
the FT that:

    "The time has come to be more proactive on the European level, not
    to regulate the Internet but to regulate some platforms that have
    gained dominant positions and now use those dominant positions to
    make it impossible for smaller actors to develop and to challenge
    their positions. That's a problem."

Ms Pellerin has been pushing the issue on the European agenda since 
then, with some success and aims at linking the tax base to the place 
where the profits are made, and proposing a revised EU value added tax 
by spring 2014. For the White House and the State department, it sounds 
like a minor blow, as the project targets mainly US corporations, and 
wealthy ones. Some new tax revenues might soften political wills around 
the digital planet. Dries Lesage, professor of globalization and global 
governance, at Ghent Institute for International Studies, at Ghent 
University brings a clear understanding of what is at stake in a paper 
published in the Saint Petersburg G20 preparatory documentation:

    "The transnational observation should give way to an entirely new
    regime, one that is based on unitary taxation. This means that
    multinationals' global profits are allocated and taxed per country,
    according to a formula that looks into real economic activity. The
    current regime, in contrast, allows multinational groups to engage
    in artificial cross-border transactions among their own
    subsidiaries, in order to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions and
    tax havens."

Regarding the Internet governance itself, a US idea has emerged in order 
to create a double-win situation. "/Let's give away the ICANN to the 
rest of the world/." From DC to London, Paris, Geneva, Istanbul, Rio, 
Bali, the idea is getting more popular according to sources at the IGF 
and other stakeholders who declined to be identified at this stage. 
What's the plan? The ICANN would become an international body, away from 
US control. Officially. Of course, it is hard to imagine that this would 
affect the 13 global Internet 'root-servers' run by entities based in 
the US (Verisign, USC-ISI, Cogent, Maryland University, Nasa, Internet 
Systems Consortium, Defense Information Systems Agency, United States 
Army, ICANN), one in the UK (RIPE NCC), one in Japan (WIDE Project), and 
one in Sweden (Autonomica). For the plan to work to 'sacrifice' the 
ICANN and impose a multi-stakeholder neoliberal model, the US needs to 
give the ICANN an international shine, still not a UN one. There enters 
an unexpected player: the Swiss who have been suffering much of the US 
tax blame, and lost their banking secrecy under its twist, have now a 
possibility to calm the fiscal US storm by giving to a future ICANN a 
nest, which would be "neutral" and "international". It would look 
UN-style without being UN. It would also reinforce the multi-stakeholder 
shine of the criticized ICANN. A clear definition of what means the 
later model is still unclear, and this vagueness might be its most 
enjoyable advantage. Such an institutional animal would have much room 
for improvisation and special arrangements - as ICANN did for 15 years 
so far. There is a danger that corporations' voice would equal if not 
overpass all governmental voices. Civil society would also participate 
but as their funding often comes from Corporations, they might not be so 
independent. Of course, the Brazilians whose president has turned this 
into a personal matter would have an easy reward to collect, as they 
could claim they have obtained a major change in Internet Governance. 
Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff has announced during her NY speech at 
the UN that her country will submit a resolution in order to change the 
course of the Internet governance before December 16, 2013, when the UN 
General assembly will take a break for 13 weeks. As the US would 
certainly appreciate this resolution never to surface, the president of 
ICANN, Fadi Chéhade visited Brazil on October 7. Chéhade met Brazilian 
Communication minister, Paulo Bernardo, and they agreed that Brazil 
would host a meeting in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro.

    "I understand that the Internet, as a new feature, requires active
    participation by governments, their respective agencies within the
    United Nations, but also users, civil society, and technicians, who
    after all make the Internet work"

Chehadé defended, adding that corporations and academics should also 
participate to the debate.

    "We must not allow economic, political and religious interests to
    interfere in the free circulation of ideas"

Bernardo commented. This is why these days, there is growing excitement 
in order to announce that the ICANN might move away from a Californian 
non profit to a more international, multi-stakeholder model, still 
keeping the governments and ITU at bay in a renewed Governmental 
Advisory Committee already existing in the current ICANN. Last week, 
during a UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (on Internet related 
public issues), an AT&T employee and representative of an Indian 
business chamber said:

    "Business believes that stakeholders at the future table need to be
    on a equal footing to make decisions related to Internet policy."

According to one participant to the meeting, a lot of the present 
working group members from private sector and civil society supported 
this view enthusiastically. Ultimately, such a idea would lead 
corporations and governments to establish together the future of 
Internet policy making.

On December 6, in Bern, a forum will gather a group of Swiss authorities 
and US stakeholders such as Internet Society and ICANN representatives. 
They will talk about the "Institutionalization of Global Internet 
Governance, Multistakeholderism, Multilateralism and Beyond". Frédéric 
Riehl, vice-director of the Swiss Federal Office of Communications will 
explain the new positioning of Switzerland in the Internet Governance 
landscape. The participants will also assess the multilateral model such 
as the ones from ITU, WTO and WIPO, during a debate moderated by Tarek 
Kamel, senior advisor to the ICANN President for governmental 
engagement. Probably the best person to do so if one considers the 
objective of the meeting. Everything seems to go in the right direction 
for the new ICANN that might join soon the Internet Society, already 
headquartered in Geneva.

Giving away the ICANN might please a few; the Swiss, the Brazilians, and 
the usual faithful digital US allies such as the Swedish and British, 
but what's about the Germans, the French and other Europeans, not to 
mention the Africans and Asians. As the single market for Telecom in 
Europe is at stake these days, the Europeans might have a serious talk.

By the way, what are the media telling us on this huge battle and 
challenge? They might buy the 'internationalization' of the ICANN as a 
good step forward (!?). Many among foreign governments might not go for 
it. The first Internet political war is going to last until we get a 
fair and open debate.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/23360d04/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Nov 13 05:35:57 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:35:57 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTrOnyyB+-A_a0whRqFXdDxstrf4peN7e3vLFi1QyFZWjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com> <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp> <CALTAiTo9EWiUp5V3z=LYtKnh7TpUH7pLxPYkVga6W-eQ+tFspA@mail.gmail.com> <52824742.3040002@cdt.org> <CALTAiTrOnyyB+-A_a0whRqFXdDxstrf4peN7e3vLFi1QyFZWjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5283560D.6000203@cdt.org>

Thanks Joana to you and others for keeping us apprised.

Couple of comments:

2) If we have not already done so, I think it might be useful to 
formally identify the four representatives to the Brazilian government 
as the interfaces for civil society (or some appropriate wording) 
indicating that this is a follow-on from our discussions with them at 
the IGF etc.

3) it is important that the discussion on 1net documents either take 
place in an open manner or take place in a clearly defined and equally 
balanced multi-stakeholder group (steering or whatever).  At the moment 
they appear to be being drafted in public and private.

5) + 1 - we should participate *and shape* until that time we can make a 
decision based on facts.   That said, actual documents we can contribute 
to in a transparent way need to be available and participation 
mechanisms that enable equally balanced engagement need to be put in 
place.  We need to have these asap.

Matthew

On 12/11/2013 17:28, Joana Varon wrote:
> Hi Matthew and all,
>
> 5 important points to complete my previous email, red for *important 
> info *andblue for *actions* required:
>
> 1) The thread discussing the framing document/concept note stopped. 
> I'm asking for a clarification to see either it is going to be debated 
> within the steering committee or what. Nevertheless, it would be good 
> if we manage to reach Buenos Aires with our comments on this (I'm 
> trying to find means to go, if anyone has suggestions, let me know). 
> So, let's follow Joy's comments and add it to a pad for inputs. I'll 
> coordinate with Carolina to have a commented version online for edits 
> and send you a link asap.
>
>
> 2) On the other hand, another document regarding the Summit (now 
> called conference), has been sent to the list (please, find it 
> attached). It's a proposal written by Icann and Adiel. I'm also trying 
> to have clarifications about it's goal (either if it is meant to be a 
> proposal from the 1net/dialogue to the Brazilian government or if it 
> is a Icann draft). I don't like it in the way it stands, but we can 
> discuss this later on, after we get this clarification. On the other 
> hand, it would be good to advance a bit from our statement and know 
> what do WE want from the summit. :)
>
>
> 3) Also, Carolina has just asked the list to have all this documents 
> (concept note and summit draft) available for subscribers as well.
>
>
> 4) So, in order to answer Bill's question on the other thread 
> initiated by Carolina with the previous follow up summary, we believe 
> most of the work on the next steps for 1net will be focused on:
>
> -  thesetwo documents (1 net/dialogue concept note and summit draft)
>
> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business, tech 
> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference 
> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list 
> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just 
> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a 
> coalition)
>
> 5) The issue of engaging or not still remains, but I would keep going 
> to see.. once there is a steering committee and these two documents 
> are formatted, we will have a better idea of all this. Carolina, 
> please, correct me if I'm wrong, but, besides recognizing that each 
> stakeholder group will point it's representatives,I haven't seen any 
> mechanism or process debated to set the steering, have you?
>
> kind regards,
>
> joana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:20 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org 
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all
>
>     Could someone point us to the latest version of the 1net framing
>     document?
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Matthew
>
>
>     On 12/11/2013 15:18, Joana Varon wrote:
>>     Good point, Adam. Please, remember that this quick summary is a
>>     report on the the strategy developed just within the dialogue/1net.
>>
>>     The Brazilian government is still to delivery an statement with
>>     details for engagement, but the spirit, as far as I know, is that
>>     it will be open and inclusive. Please, remember that we have even
>>     proposed to the Minister of Communications to open a platform for
>>     public consultation and the idea was welcomed.
>>     Let us develop further the conversations with the Brazilian
>>     government to search for more on this.
>>
>>     best
>>
>>     joana
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>>     <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
>>
>>         Dear Joana,
>>
>>         Thank you very much.
>>
>>         Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali,
>>         representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for
>>         all to help organize and for all to participate: an open
>>         invitation to an open meeting.  Was this discussed on the
>>         list, and they instead decided on a more limited steering
>>         committee?  (I will try to look at the archives).
>>
>>         Best,
>>
>>         Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>
>>         > Dear all,
>>         >
>>         > Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline
>>         for a few days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but
>>         please, find here quick updates on the debates about the
>>         I*coalition/dialogue, which now is being called dialogue or 1net:
>>         >
>>         > Wisely, the archive and the subscription process to the
>>         list is now open to anyone. Subscriptions here
>>         https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. Archives
>>         accessible here https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
>>         >
>>         > Also, a website called 1net.org <http://1net.org> was put
>>         in place and sent by Adiel to the list, who asked for
>>         comments. A note will go out in the next days to those who
>>         attended wider meetings in Bali to sign up via the website.
>>         >
>>         > Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>         >
>>         > - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
>>         particularly business, remains calling meeting). For that,
>>         the dialogue, following our move in Bali, is also suggesting
>>         to have 3 representatives from each stakeholder (civil
>>         society, business, technical community), to identify 3
>>         representatives to participate in the preparations.
>>         >
>>         > - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges
>>         to establish a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help
>>         prepare any materials for discussion/coordinate with the
>>         broader community.  On my perception, reaching balance on
>>         this steering committee will be vital to assess our level of
>>         engagement in the dialogue. The issue of representativeness
>>         of CS will knock again on our doors.
>>         >
>>         > Hope it helps
>>         >
>>         > All the best,
>>         >
>>         > joana
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > --
>>         > --
>>         >
>>         > Joana Varon Ferraz
>>         > @joana_varon
>>         > PGP 0x016B8E73
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > ____________________________________________________________
>>         > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>         > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>         > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     -- 
>>
>>     Joana Varon Ferraz
>>     @joana_varon
>>     PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>
>     -- 
>
>     Matthew Shears
>     Director and Representative
>     Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>     Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>     mshears at cdt.org  <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>     +44 (0) 771 247 2987  <tel:%2B44%20%280%29%20771%20247%202987>
>     Skype: mshears
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/298249db/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed Nov 13 05:36:36 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:36:36 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be
 Enough for the US to Restore Its Internet Ethics
In-Reply-To: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net>
References: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <F4D9EA80-1220-484A-89C5-186C3D7AD005@uzh.ch>

Hi

On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:48 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> On December 6, in Bern, a forum will gather a group of Swiss authorities and US stakeholders such as Internet Society and ICANN representatives. They will talk about the "Institutionalization of Global Internet Governance, Multistakeholderism, Multilateralism and Beyond". Frédéric Riehl, vice-director of the Swiss Federal Office of Communications will explain the new positioning of Switzerland in the Internet Governance landscape. The participants will also assess the multilateral model such as the ones from ITU, WTO and WIPO, during a debate moderated by Tarek Kamel, senior advisor to the ICANN President for governmental engagement. Probably the best person to do so if one considers the objective of the meeting. Everything seems to go in the right direction for the new ICANN that might join soon the Internet Society, already headquartered in Geneva.

Without commenting on the rest of this tiresome tirade, as the co-organizer of the above mentioned conference I’d like to correct and update its characterization.  It is not "a debate” involving Swiss authorities and US stakeholders (bit of a slight to ISOC and ICANN participants from around the world, but whatever), and the "objectives of the meeting” are neither nefarious nor programmatic.  It is an academic research conference, sponsored by the Swiss Network of International Studies (SNIS) and hosted by the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern.  The speakers (many of them IGC members) will be presenting draft memos that will subsequently grow into chapters for an edited book we'll publish late next year.  4 of the 5 panel moderators will be non-academics in order to help us broaden the discussion and take on board current issues of interest to practitioners in the field.  One of these moderators will be Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy , ICANN, who is replacing Tarek.

Anyone who has the interest and ability to be in Bern on 6-7 December is welcome to attend; registration is via the website, http://www.snis.ch/node/8146.  Unfortunately, SNIS does not do remote participation.

Best,

Bill

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/b7ad75de/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Nov 13 05:53:29 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:53:29 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <5283560D.6000203@cdt.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com> <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp> <CALTAiTo9EWiUp5V3z=LYtKnh7TpUH7pLxPYkVga6W-eQ+tFspA@mail.gmail.com> <52824742.3040002@cdt.org> <CALTAiTrOnyyB+-A_a0whRqFXdDxstrf4peN7e3vLFi1QyFZWjg@mail.gmail.com> <5283560D.6000203@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <2182A803-ECE0-48C6-833F-BB44C29BFC61@glocom.ac.jp>

Before doing anything I think we'd better wait to hear what the Brazil govt has to say.  In Bali govt reps said they'd consider what they'd heard in their various meetings, sessions etc and make a statement about the May meeting around November 11.  Announcement has been delayed until today (perhaps tomorrow.)  

Adam 


On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:35 PM, matthew shears wrote:

> Thanks Joana to you and others for keeping us apprised.
> 
> Couple of comments:
> 
> 2) If we have not already done so, I think it might be useful to formally identify the four representatives to the Brazilian government as the interfaces for civil society (or some appropriate wording) indicating that this is a follow-on from our discussions with them at the IGF etc.
> 
> 3) it is important that the discussion on 1net documents either take place in an open manner or take place in a clearly defined and equally balanced multi-stakeholder group (steering or whatever).  At the moment they appear to be being drafted in public and private.
> 
> 5) + 1 - we should participate and shape until that time we can make a decision based on facts.   That said, actual documents we can contribute to in a transparent way need to be available and participation mechanisms that enable equally balanced engagement need to be put in place.  We need to have these asap.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 12/11/2013 17:28, Joana Varon wrote:
>> Hi Matthew and all, 
>> 
>> 5 important points to complete my previous email, red for important info and blue for actions required:
>> 
>> 1) The thread discussing the framing document/concept note stopped. I'm asking for a clarification to see either it is going to be debated within the steering committee or what. Nevertheless, it would be good if we manage to reach Buenos Aires with our comments on this (I'm trying to find means to go, if anyone has suggestions, let me know). So, let's follow Joy's comments and add it to a pad for inputs. I'll coordinate with Carolina to have a commented version online for edits and send you a link asap.  
>> 
>> 
>> 2) On the other hand, another document regarding the Summit (now called conference), has been sent to the list (please, find it attached). It's a proposal written by Icann and Adiel. I'm also trying to have clarifications about it's goal (either if it is meant to be a proposal from the 1net/dialogue to the Brazilian government or if it is a Icann draft). I don't like it in the way it stands, but we can discuss this later on, after we get this clarification. On the other hand, it would be good to advance a bit from our statement and know what do WE want from the summit. :)
>> 
>> 
>> 3) Also, Carolina has just asked the list to have all this documents (concept note and summit draft) available for subscribers as well. 
>> 
>> 
>> 4) So, in order to answer Bill's question on the other thread initiated by Carolina with the previous follow up summary, we believe most of the work on the next steps for 1net will be focused on:
>> 
>> -  these two documents (1 net/dialogue concept note and summit draft)
>> 
>> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business, tech and civil soc) for the steering committee and for the conference working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a coalition)
>> 
>> 5) The issue of engaging or not still remains, but I would keep going to see.. once there is a steering committee and these two documents are formatted, we will have a better idea of all this. Carolina, please, correct me if I'm wrong,             but, besides recognizing that each stakeholder group will point it's representatives, I haven't seen any mechanism or process debated to set the steering, have you? 
>> 
>> kind regards, 
>> 
>> joana
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:20 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>> Hi all
>> 
>> Could someone point us to the latest version of the 1net framing document?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Matthew
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/11/2013 15:18, Joana Varon wrote:
>>> Good point, Adam. Please, remember that this quick summary is a report on the the strategy developed just within the                               dialogue/1net.
>>> 
>>> The Brazilian government is still to delivery an statement with details for engagement, but the spirit, as far as I know, is that it will be open and inclusive. Please, remember that we have even proposed to the Minister of Communications to open a platform for public consultation and the idea was welcomed.
>>> Let us develop further the conversations with the Brazilian government to search for more on this. 
>>> 
>>> best
>>> 
>>> joana
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>> Dear Joana,
>>> 
>>> Thank you very much.
>>> 
>>> Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali, representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to help organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an open meeting.  Was this discussed on the list, and they instead decided on a more limited steering committee?  (I will try to look at the archives).
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Dear all,
>>> >
>>> > Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here quick updates on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which now is being called dialogue or 1net:
>>> >
>>> > Wisely, the archive and the subscription process to the list is now open to anyone. Subscriptions here https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. Archives accessible here https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
>>> >
>>> > Also, a website called 1net.org was put in place and sent by Adiel to the list, who asked for comments. A note will go out in the next days to those who attended wider meetings in Bali to sign up via the website.
>>> >
>>> > Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>> >
>>> > - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
>>> >
>>> > - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
>>> >
>>> > Hope it helps
>>> >
>>> > All the best,
>>> >
>>> > joana
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> > @joana_varon
>>> > PGP 0x016B8E73
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> @joana_varon
>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>  
>> -- 
>> 
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director and Representative
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> 
>> mshears at cdt.org
>> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
>> 
>> Skype: mshears
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> 
> mshears at cdt.org
> 
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
> 


From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Nov 13 06:03:17 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:03:17 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <5283560D.6000203@cdt.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp> <CALTAiTo9EWiUp5V3z=LYtKnh7TpUH7pLxPYkVga6W-eQ+tFspA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52824742.3040002@cdt.org> <CALTAiTrOnyyB+-A_a0whRqFXdDxstrf4peN7e3vLFi1QyFZWjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5283560D.6000203@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiToncyRcys+8fs43a5-TsDTxFSpFGUNN2wbKYJNvt0LYzA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Thanks for the comments. It seams we are on the same page here, which is
great!

So next steps on my end here:

1) writing the Brazilian gov to reaffirm that the 4 liasons are the channel
for international civil society, independently of what happens with the
1net;

2) reaffirm the same to the 1net;

3) asking clarity and transparency regarding the next steps for debating
the two documents of 1net, demanding them to be public and the existence of
mechanisms for equally balanced engagement.

I'm doing all this right now.

On the other hand, in agreement with Matthew's suggestion, from all of you
it would be really useful indeed:

1) to have the 4 formally appointed from our network, please, remember that
CGI.br has a role in representing *national civil society *in the
organization of the summit, and it should have, but the liasons are working
as a bridge to the *international civil society.* It would be great if we
could have this in paper, so we could have more legitimacy to interact with
the Brazilian government, which will also feel more comfortable with it. I
could ask help from BB steering committee to write this or if anyone would
like to volunteer, it is great as well.

Does it seam like a plan?

best

joana





On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:35 AM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>  Thanks Joana to you and others for keeping us apprised.
>
> Couple of comments:
>
> 2) If we have not already done so, I think it might be useful to formally
> identify the four representatives to the Brazilian government as the
> interfaces for civil society (or some appropriate wording) indicating that
> this is a follow-on from our discussions with them at the IGF etc.
>
> 3) it is important that the discussion on 1net documents either take place
> in an open manner or take place in a clearly defined and equally balanced
> multi-stakeholder group (steering or whatever).  At the moment they appear
> to be being drafted in public and private.
>
> 5) + 1 - we should participate *and shape* until that time we can make a
> decision based on facts.   That said, actual documents we can contribute to
> in a transparent way need to be available and participation mechanisms that
> enable equally balanced engagement need to be put in place.  We need to
> have these asap.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 12/11/2013 17:28, Joana Varon wrote:
>
>    Hi Matthew and all,
>
>  5 important points to complete my previous email, red for *important
> info *and blue for *actions* required:
>
> 1) The thread discussing the framing document/concept note stopped. I'm
> asking for a clarification to see either it is going to be debated within
> the steering committee or what. Nevertheless, it would be good if we manage
> to reach Buenos Aires with our comments on this (I'm trying to find means
> to go, if anyone has suggestions, let me know). So, let's follow Joy's
> comments and add it to a pad for inputs. I'll coordinate with Carolina to
> have a commented version online for edits and send you a link asap.
>
>
> 2) On the other hand, another document regarding the Summit (now called
> conference), has been sent to the list (please, find it attached). It's a
> proposal written by Icann and Adiel. I'm also trying to have clarifications
> about it's goal (either if it is meant to be a proposal from the
> 1net/dialogue to the Brazilian government or if it is a Icann draft). I
> don't like it in the way it stands, but we can discuss this later on, after
> we get this clarification. On the other hand, it would be good to advance a
> bit from our statement and know what do WE want from the summit. :)
>
>
>  3) Also, Carolina has just asked the list to have all this documents
> (concept note and summit draft) available for subscribers as well.
>
>
> 4) So, in order to answer Bill's question on the other thread initiated by
> Carolina with the previous follow up summary, we believe most of the work
> on the next steps for 1net will be focused on:
>
> -  these two documents (1 net/dialogue concept note and summit draft)
>
> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business, tech
> and civil soc) for the steering committee and for the conference working
> group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list of
> stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just reporting, a
> dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a coalition)
>
>  5) The issue of engaging or not still remains, but I would keep going to
> see.. once there is a steering committee and these two documents are
> formatted, we will have a better idea of all this. Carolina, please,
> correct me if I'm wrong, but, besides recognizing that each stakeholder
> group will point it's representatives, I haven't seen any mechanism or
> process debated to set the steering, have you?
>
>  kind regards,
>
>  joana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:20 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi all
>>
>> Could someone point us to the latest version of the 1net framing document?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 12/11/2013 15:18, Joana Varon wrote:
>>
>>   Good point, Adam. Please, remember that this quick summary is a report
>> on the the strategy developed just within the dialogue/1net.
>>
>> The Brazilian government is still to delivery an statement with details
>> for engagement, but the spirit, as far as I know, is that it will be open
>> and inclusive. Please, remember that we have even proposed to the Minister
>> of Communications to open a platform for public consultation and the idea
>> was welcomed.
>>  Let us develop further the conversations with the Brazilian government
>> to search for more on this.
>>
>> best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Joana,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much.
>>>
>>> Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali,
>>> representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to help
>>> organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an open meeting.
>>>  Was this discussed on the list, and they instead decided on a more limited
>>> steering committee?  (I will try to look at the archives).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear all,
>>> >
>>> > Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few
>>> days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here quick
>>> updates on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which now is being
>>> called dialogue or 1net:
>>> >
>>> > Wisely, the archive and the subscription process to the list is now
>>> open to anyone. Subscriptions here
>>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. Archives accessible
>>> here https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
>>> >
>>> > Also, a website called 1net.org was put in place and sent by Adiel to
>>> the list, who asked for comments. A note will go out in the next days to
>>> those who attended wider meetings in Bali to sign up via the website.
>>> >
>>> > Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>> >
>>> > - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly
>>> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following our
>>> move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from each
>>> stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to identify 3
>>> representatives to participate in the preparations.
>>> >
>>> > - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish
>>> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials for
>>> discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my perception,
>>> reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital to assess our
>>> level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of representativeness of CS
>>> will knock again on our doors.
>>> >
>>> > Hope it helps
>>> >
>>> > All the best,
>>> >
>>> > joana
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> > @joana_varon
>>> > PGP 0x016B8E73
>>> >
>>> >
>>>  > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
>>   --
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director and Representative
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
>> Skype: mshears
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/5e374914/attachment.htm>

From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Wed Nov 13 06:04:16 2013
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:04:16 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Report back with some options for open/closed lists
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQZomqVCnmDjG-5U7WU14-kZgHfKJ_-6RU0bNARvXur76A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALU7RQZomqVCnmDjG-5U7WU14-kZgHfKJ_-6RU0bNARvXur76A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20131113110416.GC5011@kusti.tarvainen.info>

On Nov 12 20:18, Deborah Brown (deborah at accessnow.org) wrote:

> I'm reporting back from some discussions among
> the interim steering committee* on different options for moving forward.
> Here are the some options we came up with:
> 
>    1. Everything on the public list (i.e. status quo)
>    2. Using the open list as the default, and have the option of moving
>    strategic conversations to the private list
>    3. Using the open list as the default, and starting issue-specific lists
>    for strategic discussions among civil society. This would follow the model
>    of the [EC] list that was used to prepare Best Bits' submission to WGEC
>    (welcoming suggestions to improve that model). Drafting and strategic
>    discussions took place on the closed list and were reported back to the
>    main list.
> 
> Most of us on steering prefer option 3, but we could not come to an
> agreement on whether or not the archives of emails on civil society list
> should be public or only available to the members of the list.

I would prefer option three with public archives.

I would, however, also like to point out a possible middle ground:
make the archives public with a delay.

In case of time-limited, project-specific lists this can be done
simply by opening up the archives after the project is over.
This avoids the tactical disadvantage of opposition reading
the debate in real time, yet provides admittedly limited but
still significant transparency compared to forever-secret list.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Nov 13 06:40:00 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:40:00 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com> <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>

Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our meeting
with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...

I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the four
nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation, not
necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who feel
unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which works
within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.

Can we dialogue on this?

--c.a.

On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>
>> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly
>> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following
>> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from
>> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to
>> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
> 
> I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as an
> interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.  Thankfully it
> seems that the point has been made on the list that we have already
> appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the summit,
> thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to arise
> that 1net had any part in this appointment.
> 
>> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish
>> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials
>> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
>> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital
>> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
>> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
> 
> So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from yesterday)
> for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form a loose
> peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives to
> other Internet governance processes.[0]
> 
>> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business, tech
>> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
>> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list
>> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
>> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a
>> coalition)
> 
> And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly speaking for
> the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users, industry,
> civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations - we
> are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed multi-stakeholder
> Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
> 
> There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in pulling
> out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for example the
> OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses for
> Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say "wait and
> see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave 1net to
> the private sector and tech community, who will certainly overwhelm our
> influence in any case.
> 
> [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in a
> different thread:
> 
>> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective and legitimate partner.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> *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
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> @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.
> 
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Nov 13 06:56:43 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:56:43 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones currently
indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.

But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need for 2
set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for the
steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that this
network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated just for
the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate others,
including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?

If so, we are in the same page.

Best

Joana
On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our meeting
> with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
>
> I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the four
> nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation, not
> necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who feel
> unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which works
> within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
>
> Can we dialogue on this?
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
> >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
> >>
> >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly
> >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following
> >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from
> >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to
> >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
> >
> > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as an
> > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.  Thankfully it
> > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have already
> > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the summit,
> > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to arise
> > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
> >
> >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish
> >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials
> >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
> >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital
> >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
> >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
> >
> > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from yesterday)
> > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form a loose
> > peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives to
> > other Internet governance processes.[0]
> >
> >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business, tech
> >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
> >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list
> >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
> >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a
> >> coalition)
> >
> > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly speaking for
> > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users, industry,
> > civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations - we
> > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed multi-stakeholder
> > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
> >
> > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in pulling
> > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for example the
> > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses for
> > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say "wait and
> > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave 1net to
> > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly overwhelm our
> > influence in any case.
> >
> > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in a
> > different thread:
> >
> >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG is
> incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the
> implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of taking
> this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so important for
> various of the actors involved then some significant efforts/resources will
> need to be put into making CS a workable, effective and legitimate partner.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *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
> >
> > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
> > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >
> > @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.
> >
> > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/de9dbb42/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Nov 13 06:59:46 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:59:46 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>

I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this "need"?

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
> I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
> scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones
> currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
> 
> But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need for
> 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for the
> steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that this
> network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated just
> for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate others,
> including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
> 
> If so, we are in the same page.
> 
> Best
> 
> Joana
> 
> On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
> 
>     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our meeting
>     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
> 
>     I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the four
>     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation, not
>     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who feel
>     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which works
>     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
> 
>     Can we dialogue on this?
> 
>     --c.a.
> 
>     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>     >>
>     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly
>     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following
>     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from
>     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to
>     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
>     >
>     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as an
>     > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.  Thankfully it
>     > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have already
>     > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the summit,
>     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to
>     arise
>     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
>     >
>     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
>     establish
>     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials
>     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
>     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital
>     >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
>     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
>     >
>     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from
>     yesterday)
>     > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form a
>     loose
>     > peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives to
>     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
>     >
>     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business,
>     tech
>     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
>     >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list
>     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
>     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a
>     >> coalition)
>     >
>     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly speaking for
>     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users, industry,
>     > civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations
>     - we
>     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
>     multi-stakeholder
>     > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
>     >
>     > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in
>     pulling
>     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for example the
>     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses for
>     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say "wait and
>     > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave 1net to
>     > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly
>     overwhelm our
>     > influence in any case.
>     >
>     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in a
>     > different thread:
>     >
>     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG
>     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the
>     implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of
>     taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so
>     important for various of the actors involved then some significant
>     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,
>     effective and legitimate partner.
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     > *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
>     >
>     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>     > hub |
>     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>     >
>     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>     <http://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.
>     >
>     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>     >
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Nov 13 07:12:59 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:42:59 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBJtCXWuZLX2zdvQ296+s1xBwcbRqOZJ1hXkqvnr6ApDQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks to all our liaisons for their work on this.

I agree with Jeremy that we need to continue our direct communication with
the Brazil government on the Brazil summit. The 1net initiative is
potentially valuable, and I would say that we continue the dialogue, but I
don't see any reason why our communication with the Brazilian government,
too, needs to go through 1net. I don't think the initiative has developed
sufficiently at all yet for us to be able to do so.

Why don't we therefore suggest to 1net that we take coordinated
communication on the Brazil summit out of the 1net agenda for now? 1net
could possibly be used by different stakeholder groups to keep each other
updated on their own strategies, share information, ask for feedback, etc,
but I don't think its role on this particular issue should go beyond that -
at least for now.

Also just curious to know: was this website discussed at all among the
current 1net committee? Was the content of the site discussed? Its message
seems to be quite forceful, and I somehow have the sense that that was not
a consensus decision - but I'd be happy to stand corrected on this.

Also +1 on a slight shift in liaisons for 1net by the way.

Best,
Anja


On 13 November 2013 17:29, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this "need"?
>
> []s fraternos
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
> > I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
> > scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones
> > currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
> >
> > But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need for
> > 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for the
> > steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that this
> > network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated just
> > for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate others,
> > including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
> >
> > If so, we are in the same page.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Joana
> >
> > On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
> > <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
> >
> >     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our meeting
> >     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
> >
> >     I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the four
> >     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation,
> not
> >     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who feel
> >     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which
> works
> >     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
> >
> >     Can we dialogue on this?
> >
> >     --c.a.
> >
> >     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
> >     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
> >     >>
> >     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
> particularly
> >     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue,
> following
> >     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives
> from
> >     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community),
> to
> >     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
> >     >
> >     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as
> an
> >     > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.  Thankfully
> it
> >     > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have already
> >     > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the
> summit,
> >     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to
> >     arise
> >     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
> >     >
> >     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
> >     establish
> >     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any
> materials
> >     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
> >     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be
> vital
> >     >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
> >     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
> >     >
> >     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from
> >     yesterday)
> >     > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form a
> >     loose
> >     > peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives to
> >     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
> >     >
> >     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business,
> >     tech
> >     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
> >     >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the
> list
> >     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
> >     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view
> of a
> >     >> coalition)
> >     >
> >     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly speaking
> for
> >     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users, industry,
> >     > civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations
> >     - we
> >     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
> >     multi-stakeholder
> >     > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
> >     >
> >     > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in
> >     pulling
> >     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for example
> the
> >     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses for
> >     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say "wait
> and
> >     > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave 1net
> to
> >     > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly
> >     overwhelm our
> >     > influence in any case.
> >     >
> >     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in a
> >     > different thread:
> >     >
> >     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG
> >     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the
> >     implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of
> >     taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so
> >     important for various of the actors involved then some significant
> >     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,
> >     effective and legitimate partner.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     >
> >     > *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
> >     >
> >     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
> knowledge
> >     > hub |
> >     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >     >
> >     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
> >     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
> >     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
> >     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> >     <http://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.
> >     >
> >     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> >     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> >     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >     >
> >
> >     ____________________________________________________________
> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >.
> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
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/20131113/c1d83526/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Nov  1 01:57:45 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 06:57:45 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <02e801ced675$1d03f780$570be680$@gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTovR0t6vcusthUmbwXQO74O17=ypjj93GuE01wCpq9pSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD8F7FBD0CB34D8EB9522D630B7636B8@Toshiba>
	<02e801ced675$1d03f780$570be680$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20131101065745.13543bdb@quill>

Good analysis from Ian and Michael.

+1

Greetings,
Norbert


Am Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:09:21 -0700
schrieb "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>:

> Yes to Ian's comments below and certainly we should not be in a
> position at least as this time, that the "coalition" is able to
> present themselves as representing CS in addition to the Technical
> Community and the Private Sector.
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:42 PM To: Joana Varon;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [Follow up of the
> previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you Joana and all for your excellent reporting back on the
> meetings and “progress”.
> 
>  
> 
> Right now I think our position should be one of a “watching brief”
> rather than taking any particular leading role or total commitment to
> this particular group.
> 
>  
> 
> >From memory Brazil said it would be giving more information about
> >the conference in a couple of weeks. That might give us more
> >information.
> 
>  
> 
> But it seems that this multistakeholder coalition without
> governments, which this list seems to be, may not always represent CS
> best interests, and our representation appears to be token in any
> case.
> 
>  
> 
> Current actions of this type could well see governments coalesce
> behind an ITU solution. This could be very embarrassing to the
> technical community groups.
> 
>  
> 
> Right now this seems to be a not well thought out muddle that might
> actually put the cause of sensible internet governance back rather
> than advance it . I think we should contribute positively, but not be
> in a position where we are tied to the objectives and approaches of
> this coalition.
> 
>  
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
>  
> 
> From: Joana Varon <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>  
> 
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:34 AM
> 
> To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> 
> Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
> I*coalition/dialogue debates
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all, 
> 
> Hi. 
> 
> While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB
> list still remains, please, find below a summary about what has been
> going on in the very closed list that was created after the Friday
> meeting with Fadi and I* representatives, which I have reported a few
> days ago. Carlos, Carolina and Laura, please, feel free to add other
> points. Also, there are others BB subscribers that are also in the
> coalition/dialogue list that may want to weigh in. 
> 
> I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to
> that meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And
> since the meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three
> of us, plus Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help
> facilitate civil society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as
> you could read in the report, that meeting took a different direction
> and was focused on building the "coalition". So, in the near future,
> we should probably re-address the issue of representatives, and the
> possibility of broadening CS participation beyond Brazilians if we
> choose to continue to engage. 
> 
> Summary
> 
> After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list
> (i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the
> concept note and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four
> of us, it comprises the following organizations/companies: ICC,
> Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic,
> apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc. 
> 
> 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and
> the difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less
> binding, the term "coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is:
> 1net | An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Internet Governance
> 
> 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by
> Adiel, from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name,
> people got mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are
> marked in the attachment as well.
> 
> Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no
> government or representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to
> any extent. I've also sent comments regarding the fact that the
> upcoming events were only events from the technical communities and
> there is no language on human rights in the text, just on business
> and innovation. No replies here received on these issues whatsoever,
> but the drafting is just starting and is open for our inputs. 
> 
> 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast.
> Today a thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of
> an interim steering committee (about 20 people, as far as I
> understood, the same as who were at the Friday meeting) which will
> then liaise with their respective "stakeholder" groups. Quoting the
> admin of the list, the reason was that the list is "receiving every
> day requests to add new people (specially from business community)"
> and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation between the large
> group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a subset of it
> that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process." 
> 
> It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee
> which raises questions about the composition of the group (until now
> there is no balance in terms of number of representatives from each
> stakeholder group). This proposal got 3 agreements and one point
> raised by oracle about representativeness. 
> 
> In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:
> 
> >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue? 
> 
> >> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the
> >> Brazilian summit? ( There is no governments or international
> >> organizations in the concept note. Carolina and I made that point
> >> a few days ago, but it was not heard until now)
> 
> >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?
> 
> Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our
> previous thread about the first report. Another report, about our the
> meeting with the Brazilian gov is coming soon. 
> 
> If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a)
> one regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the
> Brazilian government) + the other trying to reach a common ground
> with the Dialogue. Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity
> in a kindly and comprehensive way.
> 
> all the best
> 
> joana
> 
> 


From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Nov 13 07:13:17 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:13:17 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Ok. Will be happy to hear others on this.

My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the
Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and
concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no
need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know
the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and
priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it
is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will
also be of good help.

All the best

Joana
On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this "need"?
>
> []s fraternos
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
> > I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
> > scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones
> > currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
> >
> > But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need for
> > 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for the
> > steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that this
> > network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated just
> > for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate others,
> > including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
> >
> > If so, we are in the same page.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Joana
> >
> > On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
> > <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
> >
> >     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our meeting
> >     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
> >
> >     I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the four
> >     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation,
> not
> >     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who feel
> >     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which
> works
> >     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
> >
> >     Can we dialogue on this?
> >
> >     --c.a.
> >
> >     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
> >     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
> >     >>
> >     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
> particularly
> >     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue,
> following
> >     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives
> from
> >     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community),
> to
> >     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
> >     >
> >     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as
> an
> >     > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.  Thankfully
> it
> >     > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have already
> >     > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the
> summit,
> >     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to
> >     arise
> >     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
> >     >
> >     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
> >     establish
> >     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any
> materials
> >     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
> >     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be
> vital
> >     >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
> >     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
> >     >
> >     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from
> >     yesterday)
> >     > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form a
> >     loose
> >     > peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives to
> >     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
> >     >
> >     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business,
> >     tech
> >     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
> >     >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the
> list
> >     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
> >     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view
> of a
> >     >> coalition)
> >     >
> >     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly speaking
> for
> >     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users, industry,
> >     > civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations
> >     - we
> >     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
> >     multi-stakeholder
> >     > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
> >     >
> >     > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in
> >     pulling
> >     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for example
> the
> >     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses for
> >     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say "wait
> and
> >     > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave 1net
> to
> >     > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly
> >     overwhelm our
> >     > influence in any case.
> >     >
> >     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in a
> >     > different thread:
> >     >
> >     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG
> >     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the
> >     implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of
> >     taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so
> >     important for various of the actors involved then some significant
> >     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,
> >     effective and legitimate partner.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     >
> >     > *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
> >     >
> >     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
> knowledge
> >     > hub |
> >     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >     >
> >     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
> >     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
> >     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
> >     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> >     <http://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.
> >     >
> >     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> >     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> >     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >     >
> >
> >     ____________________________________________________________
> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >.
> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/e4344483/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Nov 13 07:35:31 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:05:31 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHAJMaTctcdgCd3BwAzoV33FGF1SJ62VZsdYNMkRZYawJA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Joanna,

On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the
> Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and
> concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no
> need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know
> the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and
> priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it
> is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will
> also be of good help.


My apologies if I caused confusion on this. I do very much think the 4
liaisons from Brazil should continue doing what they're doing (and you are
doing a great job at it)! The impression I got from your earlier emails was
just that the 1net group is proposing all communication on the summit goes
through 1net somehow, and that all positions taken by us should be
coordinated with 1net, and this I don't take is useful. Did I misunderstand
something?

Thanks,
Anja

> All the best
>
> Joana
> On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>> I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this "need"?
>>
>> []s fraternos
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
>> > I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
>> > scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones
>> > currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
>> >
>> > But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need for
>> > 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for the
>> > steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that this
>> > network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated just
>> > for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate others,
>> > including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
>> >
>> > If so, we are in the same page.
>> >
>> > Best
>> >
>> > Joana
>> >
>> > On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
>> > <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our meeting
>> >     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
>> >
>> >     I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the four
>> >     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation,
>> not
>> >     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who feel
>> >     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which
>> works
>> >     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
>> >
>> >     Can we dialogue on this?
>> >
>> >     --c.a.
>> >
>> >     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> >     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>> >     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>> >     >>
>> >     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
>> particularly
>> >     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue,
>> following
>> >     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives
>> from
>> >     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community),
>> to
>> >     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
>> >     >
>> >     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as
>> an
>> >     > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.
>>  Thankfully it
>> >     > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have
>> already
>> >     > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the
>> summit,
>> >     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to
>> >     arise
>> >     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
>> >     >
>> >     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
>> >     establish
>> >     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any
>> materials
>> >     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
>> >     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be
>> vital
>> >     >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
>> >     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
>> >     >
>> >     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from
>> >     yesterday)
>> >     > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form a
>> >     loose
>> >     > peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives
>> to
>> >     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
>> >     >
>> >     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business,
>> >     tech
>> >     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
>> >     >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the
>> list
>> >     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
>> >     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view
>> of a
>> >     >> coalition)
>> >     >
>> >     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly speaking
>> for
>> >     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users,
>> industry,
>> >     > civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations
>> >     - we
>> >     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
>> >     multi-stakeholder
>> >     > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
>> >     >
>> >     > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in
>> >     pulling
>> >     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for
>> example the
>> >     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses for
>> >     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say "wait
>> and
>> >     > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave
>> 1net to
>> >     > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly
>> >     overwhelm our
>> >     > influence in any case.
>> >     >
>> >     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in
>> a
>> >     > different thread:
>> >     >
>> >     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG
>> >     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the
>> >     implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of
>> >     taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so
>> >     important for various of the actors involved then some significant
>> >     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,
>> >     effective and legitimate partner.
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     > --
>> >     >
>> >     > *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
>> >     >
>> >     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>> knowledge
>> >     > hub |
>> >     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>> >     >
>> >     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>> >     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>> >     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>> >     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>> >     <http://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.
>> >     >
>> >     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> >     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> >     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>> >     >
>> >
>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
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/20131113/41faffd9/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Nov 13 07:51:19 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:51:19 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHAJMaTctcdgCd3BwAzoV33FGF1SJ62VZsdYNMkRZYawJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHAJMaTctcdgCd3BwAzoV33FGF1SJ62VZsdYNMkRZYawJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh10ge2tpLSp1GtV5UMqzBTN_cHrhP_=HXAE7zpkN8YjfCQ@mail.gmail.com>

I have just joined the 1Net list and have read up on earlier messages.


   1. I think that our Liaisons are still on the CS-Brazil mission. I do
   believe we this clear to Fadi. The Br4 were on a mission to liaise with the
   I* for the meeting in Brazil.
   2. So it is only normal that we keep that line and inform the I*
   Coallition that the steering representation from CS on the 1Net itself is
   and will lbe different from the one on the meeting in Brazil.

Happy to engage in this


Nnenna


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> Hi Joanna,
>
> On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
>> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the
>> Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and
>> concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no
>> need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know
>> the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and
>> priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it
>> is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will
>> also be of good help.
>
>
> My apologies if I caused confusion on this. I do very much think the 4
> liaisons from Brazil should continue doing what they're doing (and you are
> doing a great job at it)! The impression I got from your earlier emails was
> just that the 1net group is proposing all communication on the summit goes
> through 1net somehow, and that all positions taken by us should be
> coordinated with 1net, and this I don't take is useful. Did I misunderstand
> something?
>
> Thanks,
> Anja
>
>> All the best
>>
>> Joana
>> On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this "need"?
>>>
>>> []s fraternos
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>> > I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
>>> > scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones
>>> > currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
>>> >
>>> > But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need
>>> for
>>> > 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for
>>> the
>>> > steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that this
>>> > network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated just
>>> > for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate
>>> others,
>>> > including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
>>> >
>>> > If so, we are in the same page.
>>> >
>>> > Best
>>> >
>>> > Joana
>>> >
>>> > On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
>>> > <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our
>>> meeting
>>> >     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
>>> >
>>> >     I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the
>>> four
>>> >     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation,
>>> not
>>> >     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who
>>> feel
>>> >     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which
>>> works
>>> >     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
>>> >
>>> >     Can we dialogue on this?
>>> >
>>> >     --c.a.
>>> >
>>> >     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> >     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>>> >     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
>>> particularly
>>> >     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue,
>>> following
>>> >     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives
>>> from
>>> >     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical
>>> community), to
>>> >     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself
>>> as an
>>> >     > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.
>>>  Thankfully it
>>> >     > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have
>>> already
>>> >     > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the
>>> summit,
>>> >     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to
>>> >     arise
>>> >     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
>>> >     >
>>> >     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
>>> >     establish
>>> >     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any
>>> materials
>>> >     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
>>> >     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be
>>> vital
>>> >     >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
>>> >     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from
>>> >     yesterday)
>>> >     > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form
>>> a
>>> >     loose
>>> >     > peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives
>>> to
>>> >     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
>>> >     >
>>> >     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group
>>> (business,
>>> >     tech
>>> >     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
>>> >     >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of
>>> the list
>>> >     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
>>> >     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect
>>> view of a
>>> >     >> coalition)
>>> >     >
>>> >     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly
>>> speaking for
>>> >     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users,
>>> industry,
>>> >     > civil society, governments, academics, and technical
>>> organizations
>>> >     - we
>>> >     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
>>> >     multi-stakeholder
>>> >     > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
>>> >     >
>>> >     > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in
>>> >     pulling
>>> >     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for
>>> example the
>>> >     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses
>>> for
>>> >     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say
>>> "wait and
>>> >     > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave
>>> 1net to
>>> >     > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly
>>> >     overwhelm our
>>> >     > influence in any case.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein
>>> in a
>>> >     > different thread:
>>> >     >
>>> >     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the
>>> IG
>>> >     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the
>>> >     implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of
>>> >     taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so
>>> >     important for various of the actors involved then some significant
>>> >     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,
>>> >     effective and legitimate partner.
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     > --
>>> >     >
>>> >     > *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
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>> knowledge
>>> >     > hub |
>>> >     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>> >     >
>>> >     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>>> >     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>>> >     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>>> >     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>> >     <http://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.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>> >     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>> >     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>> >     >
>>> >
>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> >
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/c1f1759a/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Nov 13 08:04:26 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:04:26 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHAJMaTctcdgCd3BwAzoV33FGF1SJ62VZsdYNMkRZYawJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHAJMaTctcdgCd3BwAzoV33FGF1SJ62VZsdYNMkRZYawJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTphLtT+8BwMG3sUu9Q3hcTgzMarNBO-ur+hk42Fs06Maw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Anja, I was replying to Carlos, I think we were writing to the thread at
the same time. ;)

I have the same opinion as u do.
On 13 Nov 2013 10:35, "Anja Kovacs" <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> Hi Joanna,
>
> On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
>> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the
>> Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and
>> concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no
>> need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know
>> the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and
>> priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it
>> is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will
>> also be of good help.
>
>
> My apologies if I caused confusion on this. I do very much think the 4
> liaisons from Brazil should continue doing what they're doing (and you are
> doing a great job at it)! The impression I got from your earlier emails was
> just that the 1net group is proposing all communication on the summit goes
> through 1net somehow, and that all positions taken by us should be
> coordinated with 1net, and this I don't take is useful. Did I misunderstand
> something?
>
> Thanks,
> Anja
>
>> All the best
>>
>> Joana
>> On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this "need"?
>>>
>>> []s fraternos
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>> > I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
>>> > scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones
>>> > currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
>>> >
>>> > But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need
>>> for
>>> > 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for
>>> the
>>> > steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that this
>>> > network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated just
>>> > for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate
>>> others,
>>> > including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
>>> >
>>> > If so, we are in the same page.
>>> >
>>> > Best
>>> >
>>> > Joana
>>> >
>>> > On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
>>> > <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our
>>> meeting
>>> >     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
>>> >
>>> >     I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the
>>> four
>>> >     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation,
>>> not
>>> >     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who
>>> feel
>>> >     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which
>>> works
>>> >     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
>>> >
>>> >     Can we dialogue on this?
>>> >
>>> >     --c.a.
>>> >
>>> >     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> >     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>>> >     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
>>> particularly
>>> >     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue,
>>> following
>>> >     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives
>>> from
>>> >     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical
>>> community), to
>>> >     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself
>>> as an
>>> >     > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.
>>>  Thankfully it
>>> >     > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have
>>> already
>>> >     > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the
>>> summit,
>>> >     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to
>>> >     arise
>>> >     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
>>> >     >
>>> >     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
>>> >     establish
>>> >     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any
>>> materials
>>> >     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
>>> >     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be
>>> vital
>>> >     >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
>>> >     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from
>>> >     yesterday)
>>> >     > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form
>>> a
>>> >     loose
>>> >     > peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives
>>> to
>>> >     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
>>> >     >
>>> >     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group
>>> (business,
>>> >     tech
>>> >     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
>>> >     >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of
>>> the list
>>> >     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
>>> >     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect
>>> view of a
>>> >     >> coalition)
>>> >     >
>>> >     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly
>>> speaking for
>>> >     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users,
>>> industry,
>>> >     > civil society, governments, academics, and technical
>>> organizations
>>> >     - we
>>> >     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
>>> >     multi-stakeholder
>>> >     > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
>>> >     >
>>> >     > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in
>>> >     pulling
>>> >     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for
>>> example the
>>> >     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses
>>> for
>>> >     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say
>>> "wait and
>>> >     > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave
>>> 1net to
>>> >     > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly
>>> >     overwhelm our
>>> >     > influence in any case.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein
>>> in a
>>> >     > different thread:
>>> >     >
>>> >     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the
>>> IG
>>> >     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the
>>> >     implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of
>>> >     taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so
>>> >     important for various of the actors involved then some significant
>>> >     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,
>>> >     effective and legitimate partner.
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     > --
>>> >     >
>>> >     > *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
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>> knowledge
>>> >     > hub |
>>> >     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>> >     >
>>> >     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>>> >     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>>> >     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>>> >     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>> >     <http://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.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>> >     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>> >     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>> >     >
>>> >
>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> >
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20131113/88f8e49c/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Nov 13 08:11:51 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:11:51 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTphLtT+8BwMG3sUu9Q3hcTgzMarNBO-ur+hk42Fs06Maw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>	<CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>	<528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>	<CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJqNAHAJMaTctcdgCd3BwAzoV33FGF1SJ62VZsdYNMkRZYawJA@mail.gmail.com> <CALTAiTphLtT+8BwMG3sUu9Q3hcTgzMarNBO-ur+hk42Fs06Maw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52837A97.6020504@cdt.org>

I think this is congruent with what I thought we were looking to have, 
which was:

The 4 who interface on the summit (with Brazilian government, CGI.br, 
etc.), who were selected during our meeting at the IGF and who have had 
the initial engagement with the "coalition",  and

(eventually) another set of persons who would substitute the 4 above to 
represent civil society in the "coalition"/1net (or whatever it is being 
called) going forward.

Is this the general understanding?

Matthew

On 13/11/2013 13:04, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Hi Anja, I was replying to Carlos, I think we were writing to the 
> thread at the same time. ;)
>
> I have the same opinion as u do.
>
> On 13 Nov 2013 10:35, "Anja Kovacs" <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Joanna,
>
>     On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com
>     <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>
>         My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge
>         between the Brazilian Gov and International civil society,
>         passing information and concerns about the Summit. I'm happy
>         to help with it, but if there is no need, my life will be
>         easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know the
>         overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my
>         agenda and priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless,
>         just let me know. If it is needed, a letter indicating and
>         making clear our role as liassons will also be of good help. 
>
>
>     My apologies if I caused confusion on this. I do very much think
>     the 4 liaisons from Brazil should continue doing what they're
>     doing (and you are doing a great job at it)! The impression I got
>     from your earlier emails was just that the 1net group is proposing
>     all communication on the summit goes through 1net somehow, and
>     that all positions taken by us should be coordinated with 1net,
>     and this I don't take is useful. Did I misunderstand something?
>
>     Thanks,
>     Anja
>
>         All the best
>
>         Joana
>
>         On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
>         <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>
>             I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or
>             determined this "need"?
>
>             []s fraternos
>
>             --c.a.
>
>             On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
>             > I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net
>             in its wider
>             > scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4
>             Brazilian ones
>             > currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
>             >
>             > But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that
>             there is need for
>             > 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and
>             another set for the
>             > steering committee, which will be focused on wider
>             activities that this
>             > network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are
>             indicated just
>             > for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to
>             indicate others,
>             > including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
>             >
>             > If so, we are in the same page.
>             >
>             > Best
>             >
>             > Joana
>             >
>             > On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
>             <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>
>             > <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>>> wrote:
>             >
>             >     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand
>             this in our meeting
>             >     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
>             >
>             >     I actually have doubts on our own
>             representation/liaison -- the four
>             >     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR
>             representation, not
>             >     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society
>             "tribes" who feel
>             >     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least
>             organized CS which works
>             >     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the
>             representation.
>             >
>             >     Can we dialogue on this?
>             >
>             >     --c.a.
>             >
>             >     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>             >     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>             >     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two
>             tracks:
>             >     >>
>             >     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the
>             coalition/dialogue, particularly
>             >     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the
>             dialogue, following
>             >     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3
>             representatives from
>             >     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business,
>             technical community), to
>             >     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the
>             preparations.
>             >     >
>             >     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue
>             appointing itself as an
>             >     > interface between civil society and the Brazil
>             summit.  Thankfully it
>             >     > seems that the point has been made on the list
>             that we have already
>             >     > appointed our own representatives to engage with
>             Brazil on the summit,
>             >     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the
>             misunderstanding to
>             >     arise
>             >     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
>             >     >
>             >     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be
>             exchanges to
>             >     establish
>             >     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help
>             prepare any materials
>             >     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader
>             community.  On my
>             >     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering
>             committee will be vital
>             >     >> to assess our level of engagement in the
>             dialogue. The issue of
>             >     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our
>             doors.
>             >     >
>             >     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my
>             mail from
>             >     yesterday)
>             >     > for us to quickly work with other civil society
>             networks to form a
>             >     loose
>             >     > peak structure that would nominate civil society
>             representatives to
>             >     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
>             >     >
>             >     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder
>             group (business,
>             >     tech
>             >     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for
>             the conference
>             >     >> working group. Please, note that governments are
>             not part of the list
>             >     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net.
>             (ps. I'm just
>             >     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not
>             my perfect view of a
>             >     >> coalition)
>             >     >
>             >     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says,
>             implicitly speaking for
>             >     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global
>             users, industry,
>             >     > civil society, governments, academics, and
>             technical organizations
>             >     - we
>             >     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
>             >     multi-stakeholder
>             >     > Internet governance framework to serve our next
>             generations."
>             >     >
>             >     > There are occasions when civil society has been
>             fairly united in
>             >     pulling
>             >     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our
>             interests - for example the
>             >     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the
>             EU Licenses for
>             >     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with
>             those who say "wait and
>             >     > see", but my current inclination remains that we
>             should leave 1net to
>             >     > the private sector and tech community, who will
>             certainly
>             >     overwhelm our
>             >     > influence in any case.
>             >     >
>             >     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by
>             Michael Gurstein in a
>             >     > different thread:
>             >     >
>             >     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its
>             current form in the IG
>             >     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and
>             accepting the
>             >     implications of that for the overall MS model. The
>             implications of
>             >     taking this latter position is that if an adherence
>             to MSism is so
>             >     important for various of the actors involved then
>             some significant
>             >     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS
>             a workable,
>             >     effective and legitimate partner.
>             >     >
>             >     >
>             >     > --
>             >     >
>             >     > *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>
>             >     >
>             >     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global
>             consumer movement knowledge
>             >     > hub |
>             >
>             http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>             >     >
>             >     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>             <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>             >     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>             >     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>             >     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>             <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>             >     <http://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.
>             >     >
>             >     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You
>             are strongly
>             >     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at
>             your end. For
>             >     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>             >     >
>             >
>             > ____________________________________________________________
>             >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>             > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>             <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>.
>             >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>             > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>             >
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>     The Internet Democracy Project
>
>     +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/e7708a97/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Nov 13 08:31:31 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:31:31 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <52837A97.6020504@cdt.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHAJMaTctcdgCd3BwAzoV33FGF1SJ62VZsdYNMkRZYawJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTphLtT+8BwMG3sUu9Q3hcTgzMarNBO-ur+hk42Fs06Maw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52837A97.6020504@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CADFgh1395pagoOGmJkG15oKX5sn1hcsY-Kv0+S3D9tue7RLGig@mail.gmail.com>

Hi people

>  I think this is congruent with what I thought we were looking to have,
> which was:
>
> The 4 who interface on the summit (with Brazilian government, CGI.br,
> etc.), who were selected during our meeting at the IGF and who have had the
> initial engagement with the "coalition",  and
>
>
This part holds

> (eventually) another set of persons who would substitute the 4 above to
> represent civil society in the "coalition"/1net (or whatever it is being
> called) going forward.
>
>
At the moment we opted for the BR4, the only issue on the table was a
meeting in Brazil.  But things have moved  and rather fast.  The Coalition
is  the new space and will certainly last longer than the Brazil event.

> Is this the general understanding?
>

The 1Net list is now open, wo eveyone can engage. So  I see that the
openness takes weight off our BR4. They can concentrate their energies in
working in the framework of the meeting in Brazil.  Then the broader CS can
engage a discussion its representation on the steering of 1Net

N

>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 13/11/2013 13:04, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Hi Anja, I was replying to Carlos, I think we were writing to the thread
> at the same time. ;)
>
> I have the same opinion as u do.
> On 13 Nov 2013 10:35, "Anja Kovacs" <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joanna,
>>
>> On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the
>>> Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and
>>> concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no
>>> need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know
>>> the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and
>>> priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it
>>> is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will
>>> also be of good help.
>>
>>
>>  My apologies if I caused confusion on this. I do very much think the 4
>> liaisons from Brazil should continue doing what they're doing (and you are
>> doing a great job at it)! The impression I got from your earlier emails was
>> just that the 1net group is proposing all communication on the summit goes
>> through 1net somehow, and that all positions taken by us should be
>> coordinated with 1net, and this I don't take is useful. Did I misunderstand
>> something?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anja
>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Joana
>>>   On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this
>>>> "need"?
>>>>
>>>> []s fraternos
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>> On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>> > I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
>>>> > scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones
>>>> > currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
>>>> >
>>>> > But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need
>>>> for
>>>> > 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for
>>>> the
>>>> > steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that
>>>> this
>>>> > network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated
>>>> just
>>>> > for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate
>>>> others,
>>>> > including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
>>>> >
>>>> > If so, we are in the same page.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best
>>>> >
>>>> > Joana
>>>> >
>>>> > On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
>>>> > <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our
>>>> meeting
>>>> >     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
>>>> >
>>>> >     I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the
>>>> four
>>>> >     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR
>>>> representation, not
>>>> >     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who
>>>> feel
>>>> >     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which
>>>> works
>>>> >     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
>>>> >
>>>> >     Can we dialogue on this?
>>>> >
>>>> >     --c.a.
>>>> >
>>>> >     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> >     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>> >     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
>>>> particularly
>>>> >     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue,
>>>> following
>>>> >     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives
>>>> from
>>>> >     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical
>>>> community), to
>>>> >     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself
>>>> as an
>>>> >     > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.
>>>>  Thankfully it
>>>> >     > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have
>>>> already
>>>> >     > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the
>>>> summit,
>>>> >     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding
>>>> to
>>>> >     arise
>>>> >     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
>>>> >     establish
>>>> >     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any
>>>> materials
>>>> >     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
>>>> >     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will
>>>> be vital
>>>> >     >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
>>>> >     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from
>>>> >     yesterday)
>>>> >     > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to
>>>> form a
>>>> >     loose
>>>> >     > peak structure that would nominate civil society
>>>> representatives to
>>>> >     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group
>>>> (business,
>>>> >     tech
>>>> >     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
>>>> >     >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of
>>>> the list
>>>> >     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
>>>> >     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect
>>>> view of a
>>>> >     >> coalition)
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly
>>>> speaking for
>>>> >     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users,
>>>> industry,
>>>> >     > civil society, governments, academics, and technical
>>>> organizations
>>>> >     - we
>>>> >     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
>>>> >     multi-stakeholder
>>>> >     > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in
>>>> >     pulling
>>>> >     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for
>>>> example the
>>>> >     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses
>>>> for
>>>> >     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say
>>>> "wait and
>>>> >     > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave
>>>> 1net to
>>>> >     > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly
>>>> >     overwhelm our
>>>> >     > influence in any case.
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein
>>>> in a
>>>> >     > different thread:
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the
>>>> IG
>>>> >     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the
>>>> >     implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of
>>>> >     taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so
>>>> >     important for various of the actors involved then some significant
>>>> >     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,
>>>> >     effective and legitimate partner.
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > --
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > *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 <%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>>> knowledge
>>>> >     > hub |
>>>> >
>>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>>>> >     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>>>> >     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>>>> >     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>> >     <http://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.
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>> >     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>>> >     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>> >     >
>>>> >
>>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/0b6a9678/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Nov 13 08:35:27 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:35:27 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh1395pagoOGmJkG15oKX5sn1hcsY-Kv0+S3D9tue7RLGig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org> <52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
 <CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHAJMaTctcdgCd3BwAzoV33FGF1SJ62VZsdYNMkRZYawJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALTAiTphLtT+8BwMG3sUu9Q3hcTgzMarNBO-ur+hk42Fs06Maw@mail.gmail.com>
 <52837A97.6020504@cdt.org> <CADFgh1395pagoOGmJkG15oKX5sn1hcsY-Kv0+S3D9tue7RLGig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTrfJv=oJb-iJnuA1_0iPtnRu+wyR=t9RuSNVp8L_NaZ9A@mail.gmail.com>

+1 nnenna et all


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi people
>
>>  I think this is congruent with what I thought we were looking to have,
>> which was:
>>
>> The 4 who interface on the summit (with Brazilian government, CGI.br,
>> etc.), who were selected during our meeting at the IGF and who have had the
>> initial engagement with the "coalition",  and
>>
>>
> This part holds
>
>> (eventually) another set of persons who would substitute the 4 above to
>> represent civil society in the "coalition"/1net (or whatever it is being
>> called) going forward.
>>
>>
> At the moment we opted for the BR4, the only issue on the table was a
> meeting in Brazil.  But things have moved  and rather fast.  The Coalition
> is  the new space and will certainly last longer than the Brazil event.
>
>> Is this the general understanding?
>>
>
> The 1Net list is now open, wo eveyone can engage. So  I see that the
> openness takes weight off our BR4. They can concentrate their energies in
> working in the framework of the meeting in Brazil.  Then the broader CS can
> engage a discussion its representation on the steering of 1Net
>
> N
>
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 13/11/2013 13:04, Joana Varon wrote:
>>
>> Hi Anja, I was replying to Carlos, I think we were writing to the thread
>> at the same time. ;)
>>
>> I have the same opinion as u do.
>> On 13 Nov 2013 10:35, "Anja Kovacs" <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Joanna,
>>>
>>> On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between
>>>> the Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and
>>>> concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no
>>>> need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know
>>>> the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and
>>>> priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it
>>>> is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will
>>>> also be of good help.
>>>
>>>
>>>  My apologies if I caused confusion on this. I do very much think the 4
>>> liaisons from Brazil should continue doing what they're doing (and you are
>>> doing a great job at it)! The impression I got from your earlier emails was
>>> just that the 1net group is proposing all communication on the summit goes
>>> through 1net somehow, and that all positions taken by us should be
>>> coordinated with 1net, and this I don't take is useful. Did I misunderstand
>>> something?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>>
>>>> Joana
>>>>   On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this
>>>>> "need"?
>>>>>
>>>>> []s fraternos
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>>> > I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
>>>>> > scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones
>>>>> > currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need
>>>>> for
>>>>> > 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for
>>>>> the
>>>>> > steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that
>>>>> this
>>>>> > network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated
>>>>> just
>>>>> > for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate
>>>>> others,
>>>>> > including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If so, we are in the same page.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Best
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Joana
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
>>>>> > <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our
>>>>> meeting
>>>>> >     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the
>>>>> four
>>>>> >     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR
>>>>> representation, not
>>>>> >     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who
>>>>> feel
>>>>> >     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS
>>>>> which works
>>>>> >     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Can we dialogue on this?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     --c.a.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> >     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>>> >     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
>>>>> particularly
>>>>> >     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue,
>>>>> following
>>>>> >     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3
>>>>> representatives from
>>>>> >     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical
>>>>> community), to
>>>>> >     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself
>>>>> as an
>>>>> >     > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.
>>>>>  Thankfully it
>>>>> >     > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have
>>>>> already
>>>>> >     > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the
>>>>> summit,
>>>>> >     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding
>>>>> to
>>>>> >     arise
>>>>> >     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
>>>>> >     establish
>>>>> >     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any
>>>>> materials
>>>>> >     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
>>>>> >     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will
>>>>> be vital
>>>>> >     >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue
>>>>> of
>>>>> >     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from
>>>>> >     yesterday)
>>>>> >     > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to
>>>>> form a
>>>>> >     loose
>>>>> >     > peak structure that would nominate civil society
>>>>> representatives to
>>>>> >     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group
>>>>> (business,
>>>>> >     tech
>>>>> >     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the
>>>>> conference
>>>>> >     >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of
>>>>> the list
>>>>> >     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
>>>>> >     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect
>>>>> view of a
>>>>> >     >> coalition)
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly
>>>>> speaking for
>>>>> >     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users,
>>>>> industry,
>>>>> >     > civil society, governments, academics, and technical
>>>>> organizations
>>>>> >     - we
>>>>> >     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
>>>>> >     multi-stakeholder
>>>>> >     > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united
>>>>> in
>>>>> >     pulling
>>>>> >     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for
>>>>> example the
>>>>> >     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses
>>>>> for
>>>>> >     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say
>>>>> "wait and
>>>>> >     > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave
>>>>> 1net to
>>>>> >     > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly
>>>>> >     overwhelm our
>>>>> >     > influence in any case.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein
>>>>> in a
>>>>> >     > different thread:
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in
>>>>> the IG
>>>>> >     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting
>>>>> the
>>>>> >     implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications
>>>>> of
>>>>> >     taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is
>>>>> so
>>>>> >     important for various of the actors involved then some
>>>>> significant
>>>>> >     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,
>>>>> >     effective and legitimate partner.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > --
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > *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 <%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>>>> knowledge
>>>>> >     > hub |
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>>>>> >     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>>>>> >     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>>>>> >     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>>> >     <http://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.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>> >     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>>>> >     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director and Representative
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
>> Skype: mshears
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/f5e0dd96/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Nov 13 08:58:53 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:58:53 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
In-Reply-To: <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org>
References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org>
Message-ID: <D36FECBE-5A12-4B48-A40A-07ADF3D16E9A@glocom.ac.jp>

Thanks Joy.

Disappointing to see Parminder partnering with Iran and Saudi Arabia (what a trio...) "called for an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism".  

Parminder, I hope when you present these ill conceived notions you inform the WG that they are very much your own positions and not widely supported by civil society.  They get no support when you mention on the IGC or bestbits lists.

The live transcription was had to follow --in all uppercase letters rolling down the screen-- but it seems you tried to limit participation in the Correspondence Group mentioned in the summary Joy provided (to provide "analysis of issues/existing mechanisms/on-going activities") while the rest of civil society and others successfully kept it open to all.  Is that right, you argued for a closed group?  

On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good.

Adam


On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:39 AM, joy wrote:

> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general
> note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/
> 
> regards
> 
> Joy Liddicoat
> 
> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> Dear people,
>> 
>> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
>> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
>> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
>> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
>> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
>> 
>> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
>> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
>> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
>> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
>> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
>> 
>> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
>> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
>> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
>> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
>> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
>> requires periodic revisions.
>> 
>> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
>> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
>> 
>> ------
>> 72.	We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
>> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
>> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
>> 
>> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
>> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
>> stability and development of the Internet.
>> 
>> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
>> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
>> 
>> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
>> institutions on matters under their purview.
>> 
>> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
>> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
>> and technical communities.
>> 
>> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
>> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
>> 
>> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
>> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
>> developing countries.
>> 
>> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
>> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.
>> 
>> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
>> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
>> 
>> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
>> principles in Internet governance processes.
>> 
>> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
>> 
>> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
>> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
>> 
>> l) Publish its proceedings.
>> ------
>> 
>> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
>> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
>> forum, not merely a sequence of events.
>> 
>> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
>> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
>> have been basically ignored by the UN.
>> 
>> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
>> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
>> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
>> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
>> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
>> expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
>> 
>> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
>> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
>> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
>> 
>> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
>> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
>> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
>> revealed some worrying weaknesses .
>> 
>> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
>> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
>> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
>> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
>> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
>> countries.
>> 
>> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
>> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
>> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
>> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
>> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
>> attached in PDF]
>> 
>> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
>> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
>> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
>> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
>> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
>> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
>> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
>> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
>> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
>> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
>> and the WSIS process is inevitable .
>> 
>> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
>> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
>> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
>> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
>> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
>> 
>> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
>> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
>> below.
>> 
>> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
>> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
>> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
>> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
>> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
>> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
>> suggestions:
>> 
>> ------
>> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
>> Observers
>> 
>> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
>> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
>> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
>> responsibilities of all participants;
>> 
>> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
>> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
>> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
>> Declaration of Principles;
>> 
>> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
>> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
>> 
>> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
>> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
>> 
>> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
>> Enhanced Cooperation;
>> 
>> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
>> as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
>> in a top down manner;
>> 
>> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
>> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
>> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
>> 
>> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
>> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
>> 
>> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
>> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
>> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
>> larger IGF community;
>> 
>> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
>> IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
>> Internet governance and management organizations;
>> 
>> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
>> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
>> within their mandates;
>> 
>> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
>> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
>> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
>> footing;
>> 
>> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
>> participate in the IGF.
>> 
>> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
>> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
>> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
>> ------
>> 
>> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
>> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
>> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
>> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
>> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
>> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
>> 
>> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
>> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
>> 
>> ------
>> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
>> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
>> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
>> working methods such as remote participation.
>> 
>> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
>> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
>> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
>> 
>> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
>> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
>> affordable access for all stakeholders.
>> 
>> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
>> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
>> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
>> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
>> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
>> ------
>> 
>> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
>> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
>> 
>> fraternal regards
>> 
>> --c.a.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


From kichango at gmail.com  Wed Nov 13 09:24:58 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:24:58 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTrfJv=oJb-iJnuA1_0iPtnRu+wyR=t9RuSNVp8L_NaZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
	<52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHAJMaTctcdgCd3BwAzoV33FGF1SJ62VZsdYNMkRZYawJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTphLtT+8BwMG3sUu9Q3hcTgzMarNBO-ur+hk42Fs06Maw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52837A97.6020504@cdt.org>
	<CADFgh1395pagoOGmJkG15oKX5sn1hcsY-Kv0+S3D9tue7RLGig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTrfJv=oJb-iJnuA1_0iPtnRu+wyR=t9RuSNVp8L_NaZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_LUQ8Mx6nJAEA+agA35RfJw4j-ktBkNRtCdopAjeSr8w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I have been on the 1net list for some time more than 24hrs now and have
spent some time navigating the archives. I also feared there was some
confusion on the communications about CS representation on the steering
committee being proposed by the i* orgs on 1net (was thinking about
alerting the group on this when I saw Jeremy's first post message to the
1net list.)

It is also my understanding the the BR quartet was decided specifically to
liaise with Brazilian govt and organizers, precisely because the BR govt
has a track record of cooperation with BR CS and our colleagues in Brazil
will be more effective in navigating the landscape (political or otherwise)
in such a short time span we have to take care of many things. So setting
up the BR quartet had nothing to do with an international/global steering
or organization committee across stakeholder groups. So we need to be
careful in communicating with other stakeholders about this.

If there is any other group to be formed, I think we need first to clarify
among us whether we need and want to be part of it, and decide on the
modalities of delegation/representation. On the other hand, as we discussed
at lengths before Bali, we need(ed) to get something rolling on CS side,
otherwise we will only be discussing whether to join or not a one-stop shop
set up by other stakeholders.

As to the question on the 1net website content, as far as I could see from
the archives, AFRINIC Chief (Adiel) proposed initial language and there
were a few comments (especially on the name and bylines of the coalition).
I haven't seen much traffic on drafting the rest of the text, unless some
part of that work was private. At any rate, unless I missed it, nothing
that looks like a consensus call from the list --and while anyone can
suggest improvements, I'm not sure formal consensus was/is needed in that
environment.

Best,

Mawaki



-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mawaki Chango, PhD
Owner, DIGILEXIS Consulting
www.digilexis.com
m.chango at digilexis.com
Mobile: +225 4448 7764
Skype: digilexis
@digilexis
@DIG_mawaki



On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> +1 nnenna et all
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi people
>>
>>>  I think this is congruent with what I thought we were looking to have,
>>> which was:
>>>
>>> The 4 who interface on the summit (with Brazilian government, CGI.br,
>>> etc.), who were selected during our meeting at the IGF and who have had the
>>> initial engagement with the "coalition",  and
>>>
>>>
>> This part holds
>>
>>> (eventually) another set of persons who would substitute the 4 above to
>>> represent civil society in the "coalition"/1net (or whatever it is being
>>> called) going forward.
>>>
>>>
>> At the moment we opted for the BR4, the only issue on the table was a
>> meeting in Brazil.  But things have moved  and rather fast.  The Coalition
>> is  the new space and will certainly last longer than the Brazil event.
>>
>>> Is this the general understanding?
>>>
>>
>> The 1Net list is now open, wo eveyone can engage. So  I see that the
>> openness takes weight off our BR4. They can concentrate their energies in
>> working in the framework of the meeting in Brazil.  Then the broader CS can
>> engage a discussion its representation on the steering of 1Net
>>
>> N
>>
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/11/2013 13:04, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Anja, I was replying to Carlos, I think we were writing to the thread
>>> at the same time. ;)
>>>
>>> I have the same opinion as u do.
>>> On 13 Nov 2013 10:35, "Anja Kovacs" <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joanna,
>>>>
>>>> On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between
>>>>> the Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and
>>>>> concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no
>>>>> need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know
>>>>> the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and
>>>>> priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it
>>>>> is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will
>>>>> also be of good help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  My apologies if I caused confusion on this. I do very much think the
>>>> 4 liaisons from Brazil should continue doing what they're doing (and you
>>>> are doing a great job at it)! The impression I got from your earlier emails
>>>> was just that the 1net group is proposing all communication on the summit
>>>> goes through 1net somehow, and that all positions taken by us should be
>>>> coordinated with 1net, and this I don't take is useful. Did I misunderstand
>>>> something?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Anja
>>>>
>>>>> All the best
>>>>>
>>>>> Joana
>>>>>   On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this
>>>>>> "need"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> []s fraternos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>>>> > I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
>>>>>> > scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones
>>>>>> > currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is
>>>>>> need for
>>>>>> > 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> > steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> > network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> > for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate
>>>>>> others,
>>>>>> > including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > If so, we are in the same page.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Best
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Joana
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca
>>>>>> > <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our
>>>>>> meeting
>>>>>> >     with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the
>>>>>> four
>>>>>> >     nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR
>>>>>> representation, not
>>>>>> >     necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who
>>>>>> feel
>>>>>> >     unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS
>>>>>> which works
>>>>>> >     within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     Can we dialogue on this?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     --c.a.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> >     > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>>>> >     >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>>>>>> >     >>
>>>>>> >     >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue,
>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> >     >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue,
>>>>>> following
>>>>>> >     >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3
>>>>>> representatives from
>>>>>> >     >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical
>>>>>> community), to
>>>>>> >     >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the
>>>>>> preparations.
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing
>>>>>> itself as an
>>>>>> >     > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.
>>>>>>  Thankfully it
>>>>>> >     > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have
>>>>>> already
>>>>>> >     > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on
>>>>>> the summit,
>>>>>> >     > thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the
>>>>>> misunderstanding to
>>>>>> >     arise
>>>>>> >     > that 1net had any part in this appointment.
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to
>>>>>> >     establish
>>>>>> >     >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any
>>>>>> materials
>>>>>> >     >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
>>>>>> >     >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will
>>>>>> be vital
>>>>>> >     >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> >     >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from
>>>>>> >     yesterday)
>>>>>> >     > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to
>>>>>> form a
>>>>>> >     loose
>>>>>> >     > peak structure that would nominate civil society
>>>>>> representatives to
>>>>>> >     > other Internet governance processes.[0]
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group
>>>>>> (business,
>>>>>> >     tech
>>>>>> >     >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the
>>>>>> conference
>>>>>> >     >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of
>>>>>> the list
>>>>>> >     >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
>>>>>> >     >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect
>>>>>> view of a
>>>>>> >     >> coalition)
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly
>>>>>> speaking for
>>>>>> >     > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users,
>>>>>> industry,
>>>>>> >     > civil society, governments, academics, and technical
>>>>>> organizations
>>>>>> >     - we
>>>>>> >     > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed
>>>>>> >     multi-stakeholder
>>>>>> >     > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> >     pulling
>>>>>> >     > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for
>>>>>> example the
>>>>>> >     > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU
>>>>>> Licenses for
>>>>>> >     > Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say
>>>>>> "wait and
>>>>>> >     > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave
>>>>>> 1net to
>>>>>> >     > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly
>>>>>> >     overwhelm our
>>>>>> >     > influence in any case.
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael
>>>>>> Gurstein in a
>>>>>> >     > different thread:
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in
>>>>>> the IG
>>>>>> >     is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >     implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> >     taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> >     important for various of the actors involved then some
>>>>>> significant
>>>>>> >     efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,
>>>>>> >     effective and legitimate partner.
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > --
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > *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 <%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>> >     > hub |
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>>>>>> >     <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>>>>>> >     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>>>>>> >     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>>>> >     <http://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.
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >     > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>> >     > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end.
>>>>>> For
>>>>>> >     > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>>> >     >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>
>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Director and Representative
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
>>> Skype: mshears
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/8d6f5053/attachment.htm>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Nov 13 09:20:45 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:20:45 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org>
 <CAJwbTiBGygXmcLq1y5xGYEdPYRm0wBduprU2etfWhTGA2DcDVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAdpqweoiQx579-S8KO1OfgtdeATCJN_V3c8C4RfnV7aHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321E6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi

here is my article on the WGEC meeting.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131112_enhanced_cooperation_in_internet_governance_mystery_to_clarity/

wolfgang


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of Carolina Rossini
Sent: Wed 11/13/2013 1:34 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cc: joy; Carlos A. Afonso; BestBits List
Subject: Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
 
hi all
I think we need a better way to list working topics and moving work based
on who wants to help with what
should best bits have a wiki for work by working groups
formed spontaneously based on what people want to work together on?
i feel a lot get lost in the list and people get distracted over procedural
issues and some times too many contributions - which are good - but some
times have the effect of burying the working proposals
within the Wikimedia groups, this "task forces" work well...
one examples among many from that community is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council of course the goal is different, but much is
how we fix our knowledge and develop work together in a transparent
platform, that also allows debate and a picture of the history of it)
What Carlos proposes demands a lot of work and focus, and since it is hard
to set calls, we need to find ways to work asynchronously
This idea would also work for the working-groups formed at the Best Bits mtg
just a thought ...since this list is a high-traffic list and we could
rethink what needs a working space for work and follow-ups and what
actually needs to circulate/be discussed in the list


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Joy for sharing your summary with us. This is very useful. I
> would invite all IGC subscribers to read Carlos, Joy and Avri's posts of
> the WGEC as it is very useful.
>
> The #WGEC on Twitter that was used during the meeting will also show the
> trail of discussions and thoughts. Joy I am wondering about the possibility
> of a Webinar where those of you who attended the WGEC can form a Panel
> either through a Webinar or a Google Hangout where you can talk about the
> recent WGEC meeting and take questions from us.
>
> If someone from the IGC would like to volunteer to look into this, it
> would be useful.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general
>> note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Joy Liddicoat
>>
>> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> > Dear people,
>> >
>> > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
>> > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
>> > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
>> > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
>> > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
>> >
>> > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
>> > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
>> > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
>> > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
>> > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
>> >
>> > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
>> > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
>> > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
>> > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
>> > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
>> > requires periodic revisions.
>> >
>> > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
>> > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
>> >
>> > ------
>> > 72.   We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
>> > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
>> > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue-called the Internet Governance
>> > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
>> >
>> > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
>> > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
>> > stability and development of the Internet.
>> >
>> > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
>> > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
>> > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
>> >
>> > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
>> > institutions on matters under their purview.
>> >
>> > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
>> > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
>> > and technical communities.
>> >
>> > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
>> > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
>> >
>> > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
>> > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
>> > developing countries.
>> >
>> > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
>> > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
>> recommendations.
>> >
>> > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
>> > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
>> >
>> > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
>> > principles in Internet governance processes.
>> >
>> > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
>> >
>> > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
>> > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
>> >
>> > l) Publish its proceedings.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
>> > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
>> > forum, not merely a sequence of events.
>> >
>> > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
>> > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
>> > have been basically ignored by the UN.
>> >
>> > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
>> > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
>> > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
>> > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
>> > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
>> > expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
>> >
>> > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
>> > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
>> > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
>> >
>> > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
>> > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>> > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
>> > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
>> > revealed some worrying weaknesses .
>> >
>> > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
>> > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
>> > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
>> > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
>> > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
>> > countries.
>> >
>> > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
>> > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
>> > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
>> > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
>> > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
>> > attached in PDF]
>> >
>> > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
>> > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
>> > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
>> > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
>> > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
>> > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
>> > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
>> > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
>> > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
>> > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
>> > and the WSIS process is inevitable .
>> >
>> > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
>> > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
>> > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
>> > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
>> > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
>> >
>> > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
>> > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
>> > below.
>> >
>> > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
>> > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
>> > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
>> > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
>> > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
>> > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
>> > suggestions:
>> >
>> > ------
>> > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
>> > Observers
>> >
>> > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
>> > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
>> > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
>> > responsibilities of all participants;
>> >
>> > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
>> > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
>> > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
>> > Declaration of Principles;
>> >
>> > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
>> > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
>> >
>> > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
>> > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
>> >
>> > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
>> > Enhanced Cooperation;
>> >
>> > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
>> > as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
>> > in a top down manner;
>> >
>> > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
>> > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
>> > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
>> >
>> > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
>> > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
>> >
>> > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
>> > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
>> > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
>> > larger IGF community;
>> >
>> > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
>> > IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
>> > Internet governance and management organizations;
>> >
>> > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
>> > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
>> > within their mandates;
>> >
>> > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
>> > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
>> > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
>> > footing;
>> >
>> > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
>> > participate in the IGF.
>> >
>> > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
>> > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
>> > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
>> > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
>> > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
>> > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
>> > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
>> > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
>> >
>> > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
>> > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
>> >
>> > ------
>> > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
>> > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
>> > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
>> > working methods such as remote participation.
>> >
>> > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
>> > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
>> > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
>> >
>> > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
>> > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
>> > affordable access for all stakeholders.
>> >
>> > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
>> > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
>> > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
>> > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
>> > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
>> > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
>> >
>> > fraternal regards
>> >
>> > --c.a.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini


From avri at acm.org  Fri Nov  1 04:51:18 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 04:51:18 -0400
Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with
 fadi et all
In-Reply-To: <CAEhPqwrd24-FJChMEOM9JOVcpsc1O3AHEjaQEwEVY3S59r98HA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTojBK1+XPk1feU7NdwjLYrQ5uzZDyZp4f=EwAVesygPZA@mail.gmail.com> <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <CALTAiTrcaXg4g1q159253=ozNxoh6KMwbJOJ_j1DLm4QCzwixg@mail.gmail.com> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <CAK-FJAecka2s+=Ror16xq6PU0-QABZ=ruJPaC66QtH6NwYr=6g@mail.gmail.com> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <DDDA06A2-904C-4452-97A5-98ED60BC9EF8@istaff.org> <CAJqNAHBb8ukTb6MZHt4bpY97PkT63pevJSyVrgPeaa7Kmwrz_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwrd24-FJChMEOM9JOVcpsc1O3AHEjaQEwEVY3S59r98HA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E6FA5F3-B46A-42C5-AFF5-B37C95D31B91@acm.org>


On 31 Oct 2013, at 12:39, Kivuva wrote:

>> To my mind, the strategy of being transparent at all times is one of the main reasons why action is often inhibited and civil society is often less effective than it could be. This is not only because we put all our cards on the table all the time - something which puts other stakeholders at an advantage. It is also because fully open lists do not encourage sharing certain kinds of information and ideas that could actually help to massively improve effectiveness of civil society action (and as is the case so often, perhaps Global South civil society is perhaps more vulnerable here than Global North civil society). 
>> 
> 
> +1 
> In many regions of the Global South, FoE is suppressed, and CS activists endanger their liberty in expressing themselves openly.



I want to make a point that accepts that whatever i think about legitimacy of opaque organizations is beside the point - if you all want to have secret lists you are going to have secret lists.  I know that.  People do - they have an allure.  I have been on some friends-only-private, non political lists, and one or two of them were we knew each other and had to recommend new members individually according to rules actually worked out ok.  A few disintegrated because we started talking about political cruft.  A few disintegrated because the wrong person was invited it. And one or two still flourish after decades, but they are small and really just virtual spaces that function like a neighborhood bar to a bunch of friends who rarely see each other.

But, they are not places to share information that might get you into personal trouble if you live under a repressive regime. No private list that Jeremy offers is going to be a safe and private list, it will only be a secret from those who don't want to break the secret.  And this goes beyond the NSA et al risks that are all the rage these days and has everything to do with the dynamics of secrecy in a loose mesh group of people.

So please whatever planning etc you all decide to do in secret, never beleive for a second that you are talking safely.  Yes, you may keep the plans from the other SG groups for a bit.  But if you are from an endangered population and are looking for a safe way toward FoE/FoA, this is not it.

good luck and best wishes

avri



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/24fef1bf/attachment.sig>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 13 10:13:56 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:13:56 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com> <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org> <52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com> <528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6D5B9EA3-3E27-49C4-862E-3482591150E9@ciroap.org>

On 13 Nov 2013, at 8:13 pm, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will also be of good help.
> 

That was the understanding, and you've been doing an invaluable job.  So yes we can write a letter on this setting out the current position.  I will start a draft if nobody else can do so.  But going forward, it will also be important to have a broader civil society nomination process for stakeholder representatives for various purposes.  As Carlos says this will need to involve NCUC/NCSG.  So we will, in parallel, continue exploring this with other constituency groups, and report back here.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/0242a7dc/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Nov 13 10:25:07 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:25:07 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit
Message-ID: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

More from the field:

Brazilian government (or the national steering committee coordinating the
summit) have a meeting today afternoon with the technical community (Icann
and Isoc at least) to coordinate 0.o and shall release more info about the
Summit soon. I've just written an email to the national steering committee
requesting more info and inclusiveness for the liasons. From civil society,
only Glaser (cgi.br), and maybe Carlos (?), will be there.

Also, Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo is going for the first
time to Icann and have a 45min slot in the program (attached).

Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter
nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not representatives, for
International Civil Society for information regarding the Summit will be
good to legitimate and help our job here.

best

joana

-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/6fbc7f1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2013-11-12 at 4.48.00 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 106631 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/6fbc7f1a/attachment.png>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Nov 13 10:31:03 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:31:03 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the
 Summit
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A5DB7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

I will second the suggestion for the letter, tactically innocuous but helpful to cs at this moment.

Joana why don't you draft what you need, and then someone can revise and we discuss.

Lee
________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:25 AM
To: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit

Dear all,

More from the field:

Brazilian government (or the national steering committee coordinating the summit) have a meeting today afternoon with the technical community (Icann and Isoc at least) to coordinate 0.o and shall release more info about the Summit soon. I've just written an email to the national steering committee requesting more info and inclusiveness for the liasons. From civil society, only Glaser (cgi.br<http://cgi.br>), and maybe Carlos (?), will be there.

Also, Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo is going for the first time to Icann and have a 45min slot in the program (attached).

Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not representatives, for International Civil Society for information regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job here.

best

joana

--
--

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/2eb65148/attachment.htm>

From robin at ipjustice.org  Wed Nov 13 11:53:41 2013
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:53:41 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <6D5B9EA3-3E27-49C4-862E-3482591150E9@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com> <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org> <52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com> <528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com> <6D5B9EA3-3E27-49C4-862E-3482591150E9@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C523B208-7126-4976-80BC-4DC1756D2B3F@ipjustice.org>

I've finally been added to the steering cmte from ICANN civil society.  This was supposed to have happened right after Bali, but Theresa forgot to get to it until now.  So I'm trying to catch up on the discussions and proposals that have happened.  If anyone who has been part of these discussions will be in Buenos Aires for the ICANN meeting, I'd really appreciate it if you would sit down with me and discuss the situation with me in detail.  I have questions and concerns.

Thanks!
Robin


On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 13 Nov 2013, at 8:13 pm, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will also be of good help.
>> 
> 
> That was the understanding, and you've been doing an invaluable job.  So yes we can write a letter on this setting out the current position.  I will start a draft if nobody else can do so.  But going forward, it will also be important to have a broader civil society nomination process for stakeholder representatives for various purposes.  As Carlos says this will need to involve NCUC/NCSG.  So we will, in parallel, continue exploring this with other constituency groups, and report back here.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/4d7b8110/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/4d7b8110/attachment.sig>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Nov 13 12:09:09 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:09:09 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <6D5B9EA3-3E27-49C4-862E-3482591150E9@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org> <52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
 <CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <6D5B9EA3-3E27-49C4-862E-3482591150E9@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiToxnjYWd+8LYkh2or9m1f3e3O3hAOvWOp+rsqqxZAyygg@mail.gmail.com>

Excellent, Jeremy. Lets have in mind that the letter is just for the
Brazilian government and keep going the debate regarding representativeness
at 1net, as Carlos have a good point.

Dear Robin, I'm building my way to reach Buenos Aires, it will be great to
chat there.

best

joana


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 13 Nov 2013, at 8:13 pm, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the
> Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and
> concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no
> need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know
> the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and
> priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it
> is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will
> also be of good help.
>
>
> That was the understanding, and you've been doing an invaluable job.  So
> yes we can write a letter on this setting out the current position.  I will
> start a draft if nobody else can do so.  But going forward, it will also be
> important to have a broader civil society nomination process for
> stakeholder representatives for various purposes.  As Carlos says this will
> need to involve NCUC/NCSG.  So we will, in parallel, continue exploring
> this with other constituency groups, and report back here.
>
>  --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/27366c31/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Nov 13 12:58:03 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:58:03 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Breaking: WikiLeaks docs show Obama rollbacks
 on health, Internet freedom -- Complete IP Chapter Leaked
In-Reply-To: <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD97283F@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com>
References: <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD97283F@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com>
Message-ID: <063601cee099$e77ed470$b67c7d50$@gmail.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Peter
Maybarduk
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:07 AM
To: a2k at lists.keionline.org
Subject: [A2k] Breaking: WikiLeaks docs show Obama rollbacks on health,
Internet freedom -- Complete IP Chapter Leaked

Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Administration Push for Internet Freedom
Limits, Terms That Raise Drug Prices in Closed-Door Trade Talks

U.S. Demands in Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Text, Published Today by
WikiLeaks, Contradict Obama Policy and Public Opinion at Home and Abroad

Nov. 13, 2013

Contact: Peter Maybarduk (202) 588-7755
pmaybarduk at citizen.org<mailto:pmaybarduk at citizen.org>

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Secret documents<http://www.wikileaks.org/tpp> published
today by WikiLeaks and analyzed by Public Citizen reveal that the Obama
administration is demanding terms that would limit Internet freedom and
access to lifesaving medicines throughout the Asia-Pacific region and bind
Americans to the same bad rules, belying the administration's stated
commitments to reduce health care costs and advance free expression online,
Public Citizen said today.

WikiLeaks published<http://www.wikileaks.org/tpp> the complete draft of the
Intellectual Property chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a
proposed international commercial pact between the United States and 11
Asian and Latin American countries. Although talks started in 2008, this is
the first access the public and press have had to this text. The text
identifies which countries support which terms. The administration has
refused to make draft TPP text public, despite announcing intentions to sign
the deal by year's end. Signatory nations' laws would be required to conform
to TPP terms.

The leak shows the United States seeking to impose the most extreme demands
of Big Pharma and Hollywood, Public Citizen said, despite the express and
frequently universal opposition of U.S. trade partners. Concerns raised by
TPP negotiating partners and many civic groups worldwide regarding TPP
undermining access to affordable medicines, the Internet and even textbooks
have resulted in a deadlock over the TPP Intellectual Property Chapter,
leading to an impasse in the TPP talks, Public Citizen said.

"The Obama administration's proposals are the worst - the most damaging for
health - we have seen in a U.S. trade agreement to date. The Obama
administration has backtracked from even the modest health considerations
adopted under the Bush administration," said Peter Maybarduk, director of
Public Citizen's global access to medicines program. "The Obama
administration's shameful bullying on behalf of the giant drug companies
would lead to preventable suffering and death in Asia-Pacific countries. And
soon the administration is expected to propose additional TPP terms that
would lock Americans into high prices for cancer drugs for years to come."

Previously, some elements of U.S. proposals for the Intellectual Property
Chapter of the TPP had been leaked in 2011 and 2012. This leak is the first
of a complete chapter revealing all countries' positions. There are more
than 100 unresolved issues in the TPP Intellectual Property chapter. Even
the wording of many footnotes is in dispute; one footnote negotiators agree
on suggests they keep working out their differences over the wording of the
other footnotes. The other 28 draft TPP chapters remain shrouded in secrecy.

Last week, the AARP and major consumer groups wrote to the Obama
administration<http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/11/38-million-ret
irees-say-no-to-a-trade-deal-that-would-make-medicine-more-expensive.html>
to express their "deep concern" that U.S. proposals for the TPP would "limit
the ability of states and the federal government to moderate escalating
prescription drug, biologic drug and medical device costs in public
programs," and contradict cost-cutting plans for biotech medicines in the
White House budget.

Other U.S.-demanded measures for the TPP would empower the tobacco giants to
sue governments<http://www.citizen.org/investorcases> before foreign
tribunals to demand taxpayer compensation for their health regulations and
have been widely
criticized<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/why-is-obama-caving-on-
tobacco.html>. "This supposed trade negotiation has devolved into a
secretive rulemaking against public health, on behalf of Big Pharma and Big
Tobacco," said Maybarduk.

"It is clear from the text obtained by WikiLeaks that the U.S. government is
isolated and has lost this debate," Maybarduk said. "Our partners don't want
to trade away their people's health. Americans don't want these measures
either. Nevertheless, the Obama administration - on behalf of Big Pharma and
big movie studios - now is trying to accomplish through pressure what it
could not through persuasion."

"The WikiLeaks text also features Hollywood and recording industry-inspired
proposals - think about the SOPA
debacle<http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-17/politics/35439450_1_we
b-sites-english-wikipedia-reddit> - to limit Internet freedom and access to
educational materials, to force Internet providers to act as copyright
enforcers and to cut off people's Internet access," said Burcu Kilic, an
intellectual property lawyer with Public Citizen. "These proposals are
deeply unpopular worldwide and have led to a negotiation stalemate."

"Given how much text remains disputed, the negotiation will be very
difficult to conclude," said Maybarduk. "Much more forward-looking proposals
have been advanced by the other parties, but unless the U.S drops its
out-there-alone demands, there may be no deal at all."

"We understand that the only consideration the Obama administration plans to
propose for access to affordable generic medicines is a very weak form of
differential treatment for developing countries," said Maybarduk.

The text obtained by WikiLeaks is available at
wikileaks.org/tpp<http://www.wikileaks.org/tpp>. Analysis of the leaked text
is available at www.citizen.org/access<http://www.citizen.org/access>.

More information about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is
available at
www.citizen.org/tpp<https://hq-qz.salsalabs.com/salsa/include/fck2.5.1/edito
r/www.citizen.org/tpp>.

###

2013 Public Citizen * 1600 20th Street, NW / Washington, D.C. 20009 *

_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.keionline.org
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Nov 13 14:27:07 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:27:07 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue =  1n,
 etc.
In-Reply-To: <6D5B9EA3-3E27-49C4-862E-3482591150E9@ciroap.org>
  <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org>
 <52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca>
 <CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca>
 <CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <6D5B9EA3-3E27-49C4-862E-3482591150E9@ciroap.org>
 <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.70.1642081813.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/ff49d092/attachment.htm>

From bkilic at citizen.org  Wed Nov 13 14:54:02 2013
From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:54:02 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Breaking: WikiLeaks docs show Obama
 rollbacks on health, Internet freedom -- Complete IP Chapter Leaked
In-Reply-To: <063601cee099$e77ed470$b67c7d50$@gmail.com>
References: <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD97283F@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com>
 <063601cee099$e77ed470$b67c7d50$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B991E791A@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com>

For more information on how the TPP endangers access to knowledge, technology & information, please see bit.ly/185kcFZ

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:58 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Breaking: WikiLeaks docs show Obama rollbacks on health, Internet freedom -- Complete IP Chapter Leaked

-----Original Message-----
From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Peter Maybarduk
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:07 AM
To: a2k at lists.keionline.org
Subject: [A2k] Breaking: WikiLeaks docs show Obama rollbacks on health, Internet freedom -- Complete IP Chapter Leaked

Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Administration Push for Internet Freedom Limits, Terms That Raise Drug Prices in Closed-Door Trade Talks

U.S. Demands in Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Text, Published Today by WikiLeaks, Contradict Obama Policy and Public Opinion at Home and Abroad

Nov. 13, 2013

Contact: Peter Maybarduk (202) 588-7755
pmaybarduk at citizen.org<mailto:pmaybarduk at citizen.org>

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Secret documents<http://www.wikileaks.org/tpp> published today by WikiLeaks and analyzed by Public Citizen reveal that the Obama administration is demanding terms that would limit Internet freedom and access to lifesaving medicines throughout the Asia-Pacific region and bind Americans to the same bad rules, belying the administration's stated commitments to reduce health care costs and advance free expression online, Public Citizen said today.

WikiLeaks published<http://www.wikileaks.org/tpp> the complete draft of the Intellectual Property chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed international commercial pact between the United States and 11 Asian and Latin American countries. Although talks started in 2008, this is the first access the public and press have had to this text. The text identifies which countries support which terms. The administration has refused to make draft TPP text public, despite announcing intentions to sign the deal by year's end. Signatory nations' laws would be required to conform to TPP terms.

The leak shows the United States seeking to impose the most extreme demands of Big Pharma and Hollywood, Public Citizen said, despite the express and frequently universal opposition of U.S. trade partners. Concerns raised by TPP negotiating partners and many civic groups worldwide regarding TPP undermining access to affordable medicines, the Internet and even textbooks have resulted in a deadlock over the TPP Intellectual Property Chapter, leading to an impasse in the TPP talks, Public Citizen said.

"The Obama administration's proposals are the worst - the most damaging for health - we have seen in a U.S. trade agreement to date. The Obama administration has backtracked from even the modest health considerations adopted under the Bush administration," said Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen's global access to medicines program. "The Obama administration's shameful bullying on behalf of the giant drug companies would lead to preventable suffering and death in Asia-Pacific countries. And soon the administration is expected to propose additional TPP terms that would lock Americans into high prices for cancer drugs for years to come."

Previously, some elements of U.S. proposals for the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP had been leaked in 2011 and 2012. This leak is the first of a complete chapter revealing all countries' positions. There are more than 100 unresolved issues in the TPP Intellectual Property chapter. Even the wording of many footnotes is in dispute; one footnote negotiators agree on suggests they keep working out their differences over the wording of the other footnotes. The other 28 draft TPP chapters remain shrouded in secrecy.

Last week, the AARP and major consumer groups wrote to the Obama administration<http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/11/38-million-ret
irees-say-no-to-a-trade-deal-that-would-make-medicine-more-expensive.html>
to express their "deep concern" that U.S. proposals for the TPP would "limit the ability of states and the federal government to moderate escalating prescription drug, biologic drug and medical device costs in public programs," and contradict cost-cutting plans for biotech medicines in the White House budget.

Other U.S.-demanded measures for the TPP would empower the tobacco giants to sue governments<http://www.citizen.org/investorcases> before foreign tribunals to demand taxpayer compensation for their health regulations and have been widely
criticized<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/why-is-obama-caving-on-
tobacco.html>. "This supposed trade negotiation has devolved into a secretive rulemaking against public health, on behalf of Big Pharma and Big Tobacco," said Maybarduk.

"It is clear from the text obtained by WikiLeaks that the U.S. government is isolated and has lost this debate," Maybarduk said. "Our partners don't want to trade away their people's health. Americans don't want these measures either. Nevertheless, the Obama administration - on behalf of Big Pharma and big movie studios - now is trying to accomplish through pressure what it could not through persuasion."

"The WikiLeaks text also features Hollywood and recording industry-inspired proposals - think about the SOPA debacle<http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-17/politics/35439450_1_we
b-sites-english-wikipedia-reddit> - to limit Internet freedom and access 
b-sites-english-wikipedia-reddit> to
educational materials, to force Internet providers to act as copyright enforcers and to cut off people's Internet access," said Burcu Kilic, an intellectual property lawyer with Public Citizen. "These proposals are deeply unpopular worldwide and have led to a negotiation stalemate."

"Given how much text remains disputed, the negotiation will be very difficult to conclude," said Maybarduk. "Much more forward-looking proposals have been advanced by the other parties, but unless the U.S drops its out-there-alone demands, there may be no deal at all."

"We understand that the only consideration the Obama administration plans to propose for access to affordable generic medicines is a very weak form of differential treatment for developing countries," said Maybarduk.

The text obtained by WikiLeaks is available at wikileaks.org/tpp<http://www.wikileaks.org/tpp>. Analysis of the leaked text is available at www.citizen.org/access<http://www.citizen.org/access>.

More information about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is available at www.citizen.org/tpp<https://hq-qz.salsalabs.com/salsa/include/fck2.5.1/edito
r/www.citizen.org/tpp>.

###

2013 Public Citizen * 1600 20th Street, NW / Washington, D.C. 20009 *

_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.keionline.org
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org


From joy at apc.org  Wed Nov 13 15:41:03 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:41:03 +1300
Subject: [bestbits] Day 1: Multi-stakeholder Processes and IGF
 Discussion
In-Reply-To: <528313DF.2060007@itforchange.net>
References: <52635CBD.9080104@apc.org> <07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org> <5275F29B.6030400@itforchange.net> <5276BECA.5070609@apc.org> <5278C766.4070509@itforchange.net> <5279599B.6020402@apc.org> <528313DF.2060007@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5283E3DF.2020605@apc.org>

great - so we can say the notes of the first session are final.
Cheers
Joy
On 13/11/2013 6:53 p.m., parminder wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 06 November 2013 02:18 AM, joy wrote:
>> thanks Parminder - if you could add those notes to the session
>> summary, that would be great:
>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms
>>
>
> Joy, thanks for the link. However, As I mention below the discussions
> that I describe took place *not* in the multistakeholder session we
> did together on the first day, but in the last session on the second
> day on BB related process issues, held together by Jeremy and Anja...
>
> parminder
>
>> cheers
>> Joy
>> On 5/11/2013 11:24 p.m., parminder wrote:
>>> Hi Joy
>>>
>>> I refer to interactions during the last plenary session on
>>> processes. It wasnt in the small groups sessions. The exchange about
>>> the need for clearer/ formal processes versus we should not become
>>> too formal and inflexible continued over quite some time, involving
>>> many interventions.
>>>
>>> As for the details you ask for - it begun I think with a demand that
>>> those closely associated with BB processes be upfront about their
>>> organisational details, funding support etc so that members knew
>>> clearly who is who and so on. To this was added request to be more
>>> clear about goals of the coalition (included if needed through a
>>> charter) and the need to actively reach out to bring in those who
>>> werent here... It was proposed that BB works as a membership driven
>>> organisation, with members driven processes/ decisions. There was
>>> demands for greaer clarity about how decisions are made and who made
>>> them....
>>>
>>> Regards, parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday 04 November 2013 02:53 AM, joy wrote:
>>>> Hi Parminder - i need a clarification please... In relation to the
>>>> Best Bits quality mark idea, you wrote:
>>>> {snip}
>>>> "when some process issues were raised there were many people
>>>> labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism"
>>>> I do not recall this from the large group discussion - but perhaps
>>>> it was in the small groups or was it missed in the meeting notes?
>>>> To assist, can you please be more specific about the actual
>>>> concerns that were raised and those labelling them in this way? It
>>>> is difficult to assess your comments in detail without the
>>>> particulars .
>>>> thanks
>>>> Joy
>>>>
>>>> On 3/11/2013 7:52 p.m., parminder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday 22 October 2013 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, joy <joy at apc.org
>>>>>> <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   * A *fluid working group* (to use one of our new catchphrases)
>>>>>>     could work online to distill it down into a shorter statement
>>>>>>     of principles, and get underway on that now with the aim of
>>>>>>     making at least some further progress by the time of our
>>>>>>     workshop on Thursday.  Would you be willing to be a focal
>>>>>>     point for the fluid working group?
>>>>>>   * For the longer-term, we could try to develop these principles
>>>>>>     into a standard of our own, that we could apply to various
>>>>>>     Internet governance institutions.  During a workshop
>>>>>>     yesterday on metrics of multi-stakeholderism, I first raised
>>>>>>     this idea as a kind of "quality label" for multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>     processes.  As many people have noted during this IGF
>>>>>>     already, everything from the IETF to ICANN to the IGF is
>>>>>>     called a "multi-stakeholder process", yet they are so very
>>>>>>     different.  A *Best Bits "quality label" for
>>>>>>     multi-stakeholder processes* could help to provide a more
>>>>>>     useful benchmark for these processes than the WSIS process
>>>>>>     criteria alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be able to do any such kind of quality labelling, BB would
>>>>> itself first have to follow very high quality processes. However
>>>>> at the f2f meeting when some process issues were raised there were
>>>>> many people labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and
>>>>> formalism.  So, not sure how we would resolve the apparent
>>>>> contradiction here.....
>>>>>
>>>>> I do think that when people put themselves up for public roles,
>>>>> especially in very political processes like the kind we all are
>>>>> engaged in, they need to be held to very high levels of openness,
>>>>> transparency, accountability and so on, and these things should
>>>>> not be dismissed as unneeded formalism. Democratic public life has
>>>>> been carefully imbued with a lot of such 'formalism' over the
>>>>> centuries precisely because of this reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps the same fluid working group could take on both
>>>>>> objectives in turn.  What do people think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>>>>> knowledge hub
>>>>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Consumers_Int
>>>>>> | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email
>>>>>> unless necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end.
>>>>>> For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/a057debd/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Nov 13 17:27:51 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:27:51 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeVpBCPZkPH_WH+vgVcCKe04UU0NFPD1ac00y8d8e15_w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

*** sorry for cross-posting ***

during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of
 the Marco Civil made public last week.

This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and
has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators.

Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text, the
second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its translation.
The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however, they do not
mirror what was deleted.

Best,

C

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/6c7f6c79/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MC_Eng_CR_Nov_13_2013.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 189444 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/6c7f6c79/attachment.docx>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Fri Nov  1 05:58:42 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:58:42 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: CS strategic objectives in Internet governance
In-Reply-To: <52736912.4020906@ciroap.org>
References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> <856BF77A-7A05-4C6C-93F3-2051534CCFF8@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031125559.3b9cdf72@quill> <9316B641-1958-49BE-B92F-3EFE058D52A0@glocom.ac.jp> <52736912.4020906@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AE066D06-0B4D-4A52-837B-4511A8532E37@uzh.ch>

Hi

Apologies for cross posting but it seems needed.

On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list (i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc.

It would be helpful to know the reasons given for why this listserv has to be closed if the goal is to help organize "An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Internet Governance"? (or as Wolfgang might put it, an ODFEIG).   Who is this intending to keep in the dark and why, what are the strategic and tactical objectives that can only be advanced by locking out interested parties?  You're not planning a military campaign or something.  I'd suggest at least making the archive publicly accessible.  If the group can't bring itself to do that, perhaps there could regular laundered public summaries a la the MAG?

Either way, an entirely close group seems like a rather ill-advised foundation upon which to build a broad based "coalition" or "platform" or whatever we want to call it.  This is how we'll get to the "grass roots" movement Chris said is urgently needed to promote transparent, accountable and MS inclusive global IG?

As for the composition, if I understand correctly, you say there are 21 reps of business and the TC, plus 4 reps of CS, drawn solely from the Best Bits contingent of folks who were able to be in Bali.  While you four are of course all great reps, this is obviously not a good inter-stakeholder group balance, and more people should be drawn in (although obviously not to the point of having a huge and unworkable group).  So I'm happy to see Jeremy say,

On Nov 1, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
> Going forward, everyone (including the existing delegates) are agreed that we need to nominate more people, and to find a way of doing that across broader civil society, not just within Best Bits.  Indeed Norbert raised the same as an agenda item some time ago, and there was discussion of it at the IGC workshop in Bali (that I missed unfortunately).  So I don't think there is any intention for closed groups to be deciding on process and representation.

I think there's a need to reach beyond just the IGF-oriented chunk of CS.  For example, particularly with ICANN and USG issues potentially being on the agenda, one would think there should be adequate representation of CS @ ICANN, which already deals with the TC and business extensively anyway, much more so than CS @ IGF. For example, NCUC has @ 90 organizational members and > 200 individual members, with @ 20 apps pending.  NPOC has 36 organizational members, with @ a dozen apps pending.  NCSG has some individual members not in either constituency.  At Large has five regional organizations, each comprising dozens of user organizations (some are commercially oriented, many are CS).  Yes, CS @ ICANN is broken up into silos, which is nonsense, but the point is there's a whole bunch of actors there who have pretty  direct involvements and stakes and a lot of expertise on ICANN, the issues it actually governs, the relationship with the USG and possibilities for globalization, etc.  Their voices should be at the table. 

It's not clear how to proceed with this; open dialogue is needed.  I can tell you that at the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting in less than two weeks there will be multiple meetings and informal conversations around this process, and CS @ ICANN will be raising such concerns with Fadi and his senior staff.  But I don't think it'd be preferable to grow the CS part of planning group through ad hoc and uncoordinated lobbying of ICANN leaders, or frankly that it should be up to them to pick and choose who from the ICANN communities can represent civil society. Same goes if there's consideration being given to other relevant coalitions, whether issue-based (privacy, IPR, whatever) or org-based (OECD CSISAC etc).  We need to evolve some sort of principled basis for doing this.

It would be helpful to know how those currently behind the wall are thinking about this, and what others outside it think.

Thanks,

Bill



**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/0e4c3afb/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 13 17:36:21 2013
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:36:21 +0000
Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits]
 DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <02b601cedff1$7947bce0$6bd736a0$@gmail.com>
References: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com>
 <2621D9A7-F2EE-4DDB-89B1-984B49F8644B@arin.net>
 <02b601cedff1$7947bce0$6bd736a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CB3C63C2-AD3E-4FFD-A13B-D5206947F459@arin.net>

On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:52 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Fair question John and I should  say that I did notice a rather more nuanced
> approach to the discussion of MSism at least by some in Bali.
> 
> I think one way to start is by not referring to MSism without some sort of
> qualification as for example limiting it to areas concerning consultation,
> discussion or process and not having it refer to "governance" per se.

Agreed.  I believe that it is best to refer to "multistakeholder mechanisms"
or "multistakeholder processes"... such that would equally suitable to having
open and inclusive dialogues about any topic (e.g. climate change), while we 
just happen to use these multistakeholder mechanisms for the coordination of 
critical Internet identifiers.

In the ideal world, we'd have a clear and generally accepted definition for
what constituted valid "multistakeholder mechanisms"; an objective definition 
which would readily allow distinction of true multistakeholder processes from 
otherwise nominal attempts to appear similar (attempts generally based on 
ad-hoc solicitation of input without actual transparency of process or due
consideration of the input received...) 

> A second way to proceed is to delimit applying MSism (e.g. as in having
> those directly involved in the outcome of the decisions having a role in
> making the decisions) to those areas having to do with the governance or
> management of various of the technical aspects of the Internet and not the
> more traditional areas of public policy e.g. taxation, various human rights
> elements, costing etc.

I think we agree, but I might reverse the causal aspects of the statement 
for clarity:  We commit to use multistakeholder mechanisms for coordination 
of technical aspects of the Internet, and do not presume their universal 
applicability in all matters Internet... i.e. sometimes the discussion of
public policy matters as applied to the Internet may be facilitated via 
multistakeholder mechanisms (as we see with IGF), but that doesn't presume 
all such dialogues of Internet public policy must be done via multistakeholder
mechanisms.  

Is the above comparable in meaning, or was your original intent lost in the
rephrasing?

> A third way is to recognize that to all intents and purposes CS in its
> current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and
> accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The
> implications of taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism
> is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant
> efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective
> and legitimate partner.

I have no view on this assertion, but stand by to assist as needed if there
improvements that CS wishes to undertake, and for which myself (or ARIN) can 
be service.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Nov 13 19:34:25 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:34:25 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Breaking: WikiLeaks docs show Obama
  rollbacks on health, Internet freedom -- Complete IP Chapter Leaked
In-Reply-To: <063601cee099$e77ed470$b67c7d50$@gmail.com>
References: <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD97283F@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com>
 <063601cee099$e77ed470$b67c7d50$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.71.1642081813.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

At 18:58 13/11/2013, michael gurstein wrote:
>Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Administration Push for Internet Freedom
>Limits, Terms That Raise Drug Prices in Closed-Door Trade Talks

This is the way "global community market led" social-capitalism 
actualy works. It is well explained by Aristotle: the richer the 
buyer, the lower the price, and vice versa.  We have reached the 
maximum: we sell ourselves for free.
jfc 


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Nov 13 20:44:09 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:44:09 +0100
Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] 
Message-ID: <mailman.72.1642081813.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

On 23:36 13/11/2013, John Curran said:
>Agreed.  I believe that it is best to refer to "multistakeholder mechanisms"
>or "multistakeholder processes"... such that would equally suitable to having
>open and inclusive dialogues about any topic (e.g. climate change), while we
>just happen to use these multistakeholder mechanisms for the coordination of
>critical Internet identifiers.

Correct. I suggested that it is in polycracy what is equivalent to 
votes in democracy.
"We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough 
consensus and running code" (David Clark).

>I think we agree, but I might reverse the causal aspects of the statement
>for clarity:  We commit to use multistakeholder mechanisms for coordination
>of technical aspects of the Internet, and do not presume their universal
>applicability in all matters Internet... i.e. sometimes the discussion of
>public policy matters as applied to the Internet may be facilitated via
>multistakeholder mechanisms (as we see with IGF), but that doesn't presume
>all such dialogues of Internet public policy must be done via multistakeholder
>mechanisms.

Incorrect. Internet as a meshed system calls for polycracy. This is 
fractal. Not to use an MS methode somewhere is like not using votes 
in a democractic environment. This is possible only when switching 
from politics to command.

> > A third way is to recognize that to all intents and purposes CS in its
> > current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and
> > accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The
> > implications of taking this latter position is that if an 
> adherence to MSism
> > is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant
> > efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective
> > and legitimate partner.

I am afraid there is a layer violation. The whole system is fractal 
(as being distributed) as being hierarchical in a decentralised 
context. CS is acknoweldged as a group of multiple stakeholders by 
the WSIS. It is to interact at that layer with Govs, Business and 
Multilateral. The I*Society is an US stakeholder enhanced cooperation 
between the US (led) industry and the USG over technical issues. This 
a kind of layer violation that want to make believe that it gathers 
all the technicians.

The CS is as diverse and as internally complex as the Governments MS 
Group (cf. the WCIT split), the business (cf. Internet leaders/Majors 
vs. standard businesses), and Multilateral (cf. ISO, ITU, IETF, 
IEEE). The real problem is that only a kind of CS partners is active. 
For example, religions are missings. This may ultimately lead to 
societal/cultural problems. As having successfully fought for 
multilinguiization (every language on an equal footing) against 
internationalization (every language on an equal footing provided it 
is English) at the IETF, I know about it.

jfc





From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 13 23:00:59 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:30:59 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the
 Summit
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:55 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> More from the field:
>
> Brazilian government (or the national steering committee coordinating 
> the summit) have a meeting today afternoon with the technical 
> community (Icann and Isoc at least) to coordinate 0.o and shall 
> release more info about the Summit soon. I've just written an email to 
> the national steering committee requesting more info and inclusiveness 
> for the liasons. From civil society, only Glaser (cgi.br 
> <http://cgi.br>), and maybe Carlos (?), will be there.
>
> Also, Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo is going for the 
> first time to Icann and have a 45min slot in the program (attached).
>
> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter 
> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not 
> representatives, for International Civil Society for information 
> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job here.


A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global 
civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its role in 
the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any other 
tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority at this 
stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have been 
insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our earliest 
meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication through in clear 
terms, maybe our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. 
At least if they werent invited we could have protested...

It is apparent that in some way Brazil gov is going into this in a kind 
of bilateral mode with the technical community.

Let various coordinators. form IGC, BB, IRP and if needed NCUC simply 
write out a letter to the above intent and purpose. Dont even need to 
share it with the whole group and take its acceptance it we are only 
mentioning these two things (1) fact that CS wants independent presence 
and role, and (2) names of the 4 liasons. Preferably the letter shd go 
*today*.

(I remember that when the letter was being drafted the last time, we got 
into this argument of what does 'independent' means for a CS role... and 
the needed text could not go in. Need to keep things within contexts in 
our discussions I think )

parminder
>
> best
>
> joana
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/7718ff30/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 14 02:21:04 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:21:04 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian
 announcement for the Summit
In-Reply-To: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net>
References: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com> <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <528479E0.706@ciroap.org>

On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote:
>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter
>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not
>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information
>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job here.
>
>
> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global
> civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its role
> in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any other
> tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority at this
> stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have been
> insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our earliest
> meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication through in clear
> terms, maybe our four reps would have been there at the above meeting.
> At least if they werent invited we could have protested...

Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/85847d71/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/85847d71/attachment.sig>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 14 03:00:11 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:00:11 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: MAG nomination process via Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <5281A145.3050705@ciroap.org>
References: <5281A145.3050705@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5284830B.5020102@ciroap.org>

On 12/11/13 11:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Otherwise, Best Bits has also been developing a draft process for
> nominating representatives to external groups, which may suit those
> who aren't primarily associated with the other civil society groups or
> networks.  The process is still open for discussion on the procedure
> wiki at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/.  The process, which
> is very loose compared to the IGC's more formal procedure, simply
> provides as follows:
>
>   * The steering committee shall call for expressions of interest on
>     the main list.
>   * Selection criteria will be decided on a case-by-case basis and
>     will be shared when the steering committee publicises the call,
>     but at a very minimum geographical diversity (if not balance) and
>     gender balance should be taken into account.
>   * The steering committee will select a proposed slate of nominees,
>     taking into account those who expressed interest.
>   * The proposed nominees will be posted back to the main list and
>     approved by consensus.
>

Further to the above, here are some criteria based on a set previously
used by the IGC, with point six broadened slightly (not everyone on the
interim steering group has given input into these, but nobody has
objected so far either):

  * Must be active civil society participants
  * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions if possible
  * Should attempt to achieve gender balance
  * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill and
    knowledge set, age, disability, etc.
  * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS
    updated on developments
  * Should be people who have shown some ability in advocacy with
    governments and the private sector in order to help achieve CS positions

So far there has been one nomination received to the
steering at lists.bestbits.net list.  If you prefer to send your nomination
to the main list, please feel free to do that instead or also.

As to the suggestion that we collaborate with the IGC on a slate of
nominees, there seems to be support for this.  So far the IGC has
selected its nomcom, and its slate of candidates will be selected by
next Wednesday from nominations received.  There may also be nominations
coming from other organisations or networks (APC, Diplo, IRP).

Whilst it is different to actually merge the lists of nominees from each
civil society group or network, because the processes are quite
different, we can explore whether it is possible to at least send the
nominations together, while separating the lists of nominees and
explaining the different nomination processes.

This would be a modest step towards the longer-term goal of a unified
civil society nominating committee.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/7c05c9a2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/7c05c9a2/attachment.sig>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Nov 14 03:57:31 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:57:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian
 announcement for the Summit
In-Reply-To: <528479E0.706@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com> <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <7DF51D8D-4881-46DA-A6DD-EE86A0998185@glocom.ac.jp>

Let's just wait and see what Brazil govt has to say about the summit/conference, hopefully today or soon.  Then decide how to engage.

Adam



On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote:
>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not representatives, for International Civil Society for information regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate             and help our job here. 
>> 
>> 
>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global civil society would want to use this mechanism to       coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have protested...
> 
> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 


From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu  Thu Nov 14 04:56:14 2013
From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:56:14 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAeVpBCPZkPH_WH+vgVcCKe04UU0NFPD1ac00y8d8e15_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeVpBCPZkPH_WH+vgVcCKe04UU0NFPD1ac00y8d8e15_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAApcLc+Q=+6yAkxJToQL225kWi+UTOdp0JGhwM-AJ+P3_tdOiw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks a lot Carolina. This is extremely helpful to understand the domestic
process in Brazil.

I have a question to you and my fellow brazilian colleagues. You said in
your email that the new version received great support from the Brazilian
civil society. Does this support include the support of the new art. 11, 12
and 13?

I would like to receive the reactions/comments from other people in the
network. Maybe I am missing something but those articles includes
provisions that form me, first, are not very realistic from an
implementation perspective, and second, if this idea is supported in
Brazil, I don´t know how we will oppose the same idea for other countries
that could use the provisions to go against local civil society groups.

I copied below the articles mentioned above:

  Art. 11. Any process of collection, storage, custody and treatment of
records, personal data or communications by connection providers and
Internet applications providers, in which at least one of these acts occurs
in the national territory, shall respect Brazilian law, the rights to
Privacy, and the confidentiality of personal data, of private
communications and records.

§ 1 The provisions aforementioned apply to data collected in the national
territory and the content of communications, in which at least one of the
terminals is located in Brazil.

§ 2 The provisions aforementioned apply even if the activities are carried
out by legal entity located abroad, provided that at least one member of
the same economic group owns property/is established in Brazil.

§ 3 The connection providers and Internet applications provider shall
provide, in the form of regulations, information that allow the
verification regarding compliance with Brazilian legislation regarding the
collection, custody, storage and processing of data, as well as how the
provider respects the privacy and secrecy of communications.

§ 4 Decree shall regulate the procedure for finding violations of the
provisions of this article.

Article 12. The Executive Branch, through Decree, may force connection
providers and Internet applications providers provided for in art. 11, who
exercise their activities in an organized, professional and economic way,
to install or use structures for storage, management and dissemination of
data in the country, considering the size of the providers, its sales in
Brazil and breadth of the service offering to the Brazilian public.

Article 13. Without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative
penalties, violations of the rules laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 12
shall be subject, as appropriate, the following sanctions, applied
individually or cumulatively:

I - warning, indicating the deadline for corrective action;

II - a fine of up to ten percent of the gross revenues of the economic
group in Brazil in its last financial year, excluding taxes;

III - Temporary suspension of activities involving the acts specified in
Clauses 11 and 12, or

IV - the prohibition of the exercise of activities that involve the acts
referred to in Articles 11 and 12.

Single paragraph. In the case of a foreign company, its subsidiary, branch,
office or establishment in the country will be jointly and severally liable
for payment of the penalties aforementioned.
  I look forward to hearing from you.

Best

e



Eduardo


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> *** sorry for cross-posting ***
>
> during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of
>  the Marco Civil made public last week.
>
> This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and
> has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators.
>
> Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text,
> the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its
> translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however,
> they do not mirror what was deleted.
>
> Best,
>
> C
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/ec11ec60/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Nov 14 04:59:40 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:59:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian
 announcement for the Summit
In-Reply-To: <528479E0.706@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net>
	<528479E0.706@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20131114105940.78057396@quill>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote:
> >> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter
> >> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not
> >> representatives, for International Civil Society for information
> >> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job
> >> here.
> >
> >
> > A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global
> > civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its
> > role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any
> > other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority
> > at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have
> > been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our
> > earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication
> > through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there
> > at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have
> > protested...
> 
> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps

Looks good to me.

Greetings,
Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/b52a6164/attachment.sig>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Thu Nov 14 09:00:23 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:30:23 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
In-Reply-To: <D36FECBE-5A12-4B48-A40A-07ADF3D16E9A@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca>
	<5282AE07.5000308@apc.org>
	<D36FECBE-5A12-4B48-A40A-07ADF3D16E9A@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBDmoJxypAARGxF99RXr27NNVsyJwnM=VGGRTX=MfiQmw@mail.gmail.com>

Like Adam, I too was quite disappointed to hear Parminder argue that the
Correspondence Group should not be open to all stakeholders. It was
particularly jarring seeing that the bulk of the preparation during the
meeting for the work that the CG will be taking up was actually done by two
civil society/technical community observers who were physically present at
the meeting. There was thus already a precedent for involvement of the
larger community in this work. To hear a CS representative argue in favour
of that being rolled back was quite unfortunate.

Best,
Anja


On 13 November 2013 19:28, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Thanks Joy.
>
> Disappointing to see Parminder partnering with Iran and Saudi Arabia (what
> a trio...) "called for an holistic approach to internet governance as a
> means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be
> materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism".
>
> Parminder, I hope when you present these ill conceived notions you inform
> the WG that they are very much your own positions and not widely supported
> by civil society.  They get no support when you mention on the IGC or
> bestbits lists.
>
> The live transcription was had to follow --in all uppercase letters
> rolling down the screen-- but it seems you tried to limit participation in
> the Correspondence Group mentioned in the summary Joy provided (to provide
> "analysis of issues/existing mechanisms/on-going activities") while the
> rest of civil society and others successfully kept it open to all.  Is that
> right, you argued for a closed group?
>
> On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and
> then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government
> and control. Not good.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:39 AM, joy wrote:
>
> > Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general
> > note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Joy Liddicoat
> >
> > On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> >> Dear people,
> >>
> >> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
> >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
> >> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
> >> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
> >> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
> >>
> >> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
> >> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
> >> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
> >> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
> >> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
> >>
> >> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
> >> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
> >> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
> >> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
> >> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
> >> requires periodic revisions.
> >>
> >> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
> >> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
> >>
> >> ------
> >> 72.  We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
> >> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
> >> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
> >> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
> >>
> >> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
> >> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
> >> stability and development of the Internet.
> >>
> >> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
> >> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
> >> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
> >>
> >> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
> >> institutions on matters under their purview.
> >>
> >> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
> >> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
> >> and technical communities.
> >>
> >> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
> >> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
> >>
> >> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> >> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> >> developing countries.
> >>
> >> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
> >> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
> recommendations.
> >>
> >> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
> >> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
> >>
> >> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> >> principles in Internet governance processes.
> >>
> >> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
> >>
> >> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
> >> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
> >>
> >> l) Publish its proceedings.
> >> ------
> >>
> >> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
> >> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
> >> forum, not merely a sequence of events.
> >>
> >> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
> >> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
> >> have been basically ignored by the UN.
> >>
> >> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
> >> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
> >> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
> >> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
> >> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
> >> expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
> >>
> >> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
> >> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
> >> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
> >>
> >> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
> >> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
> >> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
> >> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
> >> revealed some worrying weaknesses .
> >>
> >> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
> >> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
> >> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
> >> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
> >> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
> >> countries.
> >>
> >> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
> >> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
> >> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
> >> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
> >> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
> >> attached in PDF]
> >>
> >> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
> >> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
> >> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
> >> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
> >> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
> >> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
> >> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
> >> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
> >> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
> >> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
> >> and the WSIS process is inevitable .
> >>
> >> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
> >> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
> >> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
> >> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
> >> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
> >>
> >> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
> >> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
> >> below.
> >>
> >> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
> >> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
> >> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
> >> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
> >> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
> >> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
> >> suggestions:
> >>
> >> ------
> >> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
> >> Observers
> >>
> >> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
> >> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
> >> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
> >> responsibilities of all participants;
> >>
> >> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
> >> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
> >> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
> >> Declaration of Principles;
> >>
> >> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
> >> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
> >>
> >> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
> >> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
> >>
> >> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
> >> Enhanced Cooperation;
> >>
> >> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
> >> as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
> >> in a top down manner;
> >>
> >> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
> >> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
> >> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
> >>
> >> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
> >> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
> >>
> >> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
> >> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
> >> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
> >> larger IGF community;
> >>
> >> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
> >> IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
> >> Internet governance and management organizations;
> >>
> >> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
> >> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
> >> within their mandates;
> >>
> >> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
> >> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
> >> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
> >> footing;
> >>
> >> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
> >> participate in the IGF.
> >>
> >> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
> >> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
> >> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
> >> ------
> >>
> >> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
> >> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
> >> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
> >> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
> >> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
> >> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
> >>
> >> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
> >> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
> >>
> >> ------
> >> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
> >> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
> >> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
> >> working methods such as remote participation.
> >>
> >> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
> >> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
> >> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
> >>
> >> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
> >> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
> >> affordable access for all stakeholders.
> >>
> >> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
> >> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
> >> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
> >> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
> >> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
> >> ------
> >>
> >> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
> >> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
> >>
> >> fraternal regards
> >>
> >> --c.a.
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/6ad83350/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov  1 06:19:57 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:19:57 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: CS strategic objectives in Internet governance
In-Reply-To: <AE066D06-0B4D-4A52-837B-4511A8532E37@uzh.ch>
References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> <856BF77A-7A05-4C6C-93F3-2051534CCFF8@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031125559.3b9cdf72@quill> <9316B641-1958-49BE-B92F-3EFE058D52A0@glocom.ac.jp> <52736912.4020906@ciroap.org> <AE066D06-0B4D-4A52-837B-4511A8532E37@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <5273804D.6070003@ciroap.org>

On 01/11/13 17:58, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Apologies for cross posting but it seems needed.

+1 Bill, and you understand this already, but just in case anyone else
is confused, /the coalition/dialogue is not a Best Bits initiative./ 
The civil society representatives to the coalition/dialogue were simply
put forward (in something of a hurry, it must be said) at a meeting that
we organised.  Therefore, whilst the civil society reps can pass along
your points (and have already made similar points, as I understand), it
isn't in their hands alone to open up the coalition/dialogue list. 
Therefore perhaps your message wasn't cross-posted widely enough!

> As for the composition, if I understand correctly, you say there
> are 21 reps of business and the TC, plus 4 reps of CS, drawn solely
> from the Best Bits contingent of folks who were able to be in Bali.
>  While you four are of course all great reps, this is obviously not a
> good inter-stakeholder group balance, and more people should be drawn
> in (although obviously not to the point of having a huge and
> unworkable group).

Or else, another option is ultimately to pull out of the coalition/dialogue.

> I think there's a need to reach beyond just the IGF-oriented chunk of
> CS. ... Same goes if there's consideration being given to other
> relevant coalitions, whether issue-based (privacy, IPR, whatever) or
> org-based (OECD CSISAC etc).  We need to evolve some sort of
> principled basis for doing this.

Absolutely agree.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/3f20f032/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/3f20f032/attachment.sig>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Nov 14 09:17:44 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:17:44 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
In-Reply-To: <C523B208-7126-4976-80BC-4DC1756D2B3F@ipjustice.org>
References: <CALTAiTqZ-Cy0Afa18Hpgaqxa=qm+8F-k+ieNM25VKY=bLG_meg@mail.gmail.com> <52830B58.7010302@ciroap.org> <52836510.3080904@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiTq2zmPO5wmsG2eGNNFUgV6dJGkpLRhN5hMQJ3USdgiWMg@mail.gmail.com> <528369B2.1090804@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiToh7Od6cc-BotTk1oe8m6sj8-=0YUCjR8ommvmjs3VT5Q@mail.gmail.com> <6D5B9EA3-3E27-49C4-862E-3482591150E9@ciroap.org> <C523B208-7126-4976-80BC-4DC1756D2B3F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <5284DB88.4020208@cafonso.ca>

Good to know, Robin! We need to talk in BsAs.

--c.a.

On 11/13/2013 02:53 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> I've finally been added to the steering cmte from ICANN civil society.
>  This was supposed to have happened right after Bali, but Theresa forgot
> to get to it until now.  So I'm trying to catch up on the discussions
> and proposals that have happened.  If anyone who has been part of these
> discussions will be in Buenos Aires for the ICANN meeting, I'd really
> appreciate it if you would sit down with me and discuss the situation
> with me in detail.  I have questions and concerns.
> 
> Thanks!
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Nov 2013, at 8:13 pm, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com
>> <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between
>>> the Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing
>>> information and concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it,
>>> but if there is no need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as
>>> well. I just need to know the overall position, because since Bali
>>> I've been readapting my agenda and priorities to be able to do this.
>>> If it is useless, just let me know. If it is needed, a letter
>>> indicating and making clear our role as liassons will also be of good
>>> help.
>>>
>>
>> That was the understanding, and you've been doing an invaluable job.
>>  So yes we can write a letter on this setting out the current
>> position.  I will start a draft if nobody else can do so.  But going
>> forward, it will also be important to have a broader civil society
>> nomination process for stakeholder representatives for various
>> purposes.  As Carlos says this will need to involve NCUC/NCSG.  So we
>> will, in parallel, continue exploring this with other constituency
>> groups, and report back here.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *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
>>
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>>
>> @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.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Nov 14 09:54:11 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:54:11 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [berkmanfriends] New Internet Monitor report:
 "Measuring Internet Activity: A (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics"
In-Reply-To: <CAGnWT_Sa=B+QkVkLdNZTt_dobB104w3PbHReXTAe9HwUW7whUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGnWT_Sa=B+QkVkLdNZTt_dobB104w3PbHReXTAe9HwUW7whUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdcU5WJi1if3b+fDvJ6pmFcFbzmDZxL5qGDNz35GAoKwQ@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rebekah Heacock <rheacock at cyber.law.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Subject: [berkmanfriends] New Internet Monitor report: "Measuring Internet
Activity: A (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics"
To: Berkman Friends <berkmanfriends at eon.law.harvard.edu>


Dear Berkfriends,

The announcement will go public later this morning, but the Internet
Monitor team wanted to give you all a sneak peek at our new paper, an
exploration of current efforts to measure digital activity within three
areas: infrastructure and access, control, and content and communities.

Cheers,
Rebekah

*New Internet Monitor report: "Measuring Internet Activity: A (Selective)
Review of Methods and Metrics"*

Internet Monitor <http://thenetmonitor.org/> is delighted to
announce<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/internetmonitor/?p=1131> the
publication of "Measuring Internet Activity: A (Selective) Review of
Methods and Metrics," <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/8642/> the second
in a series of special reports that focus on key events and new
developments in Internet freedom, incorporating technical, legal, social,
and political analyses.

"Measuring Internet Activity," authored by Robert Faris and Rebekah
Heacock, explores current efforts to measure digital activity within three
areas: infrastructure and access, control, and content and communities:

This paper seeks to describe the conceptual and practical impediments to
measuring and understanding digital activity and highlights a sample of the
many efforts to fill the gap between our incomplete understanding of
digital life and the formidable policy questions related to developing a
vibrant and healthy Internet that serves the public interest and
contributes to human wellbeing. Our primary focus is on efforts to measure
Internet activity, as we believe obtaining robust, accurate data is a
necessary and valuable first step that will lead us closer to answering the
vitally important questions of the digital realm.


The full paper is available for download at SSRN: "Measuring Internet
Activity: A (Selective) Review of Methods and
Metrics"<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457>

*About Internet Monitor*
Internet Monitor is a research project to evaluate, describe, and summarize
the means, mechanisms, and extent of Internet content controls and Internet
activity around the world. The project will compile and curate data from
multiple sources, including primary data collected by the Berkman Center
and our partners, as well as relevant secondary data. Internet Monitor will
create a freely available online fact base that will give policy makers,
digital activists, and user communities an authoritative, independent, and
multi-faceted set of quantitative data on the state of the global Internet.
The project will also produce annual reports that compile this information
and provide expert analysis on the state of the global Internet.

*Contact*
info at thenetmonitor.org



-- 
Rebekah Heacock
rebekahheacock.org | @rebekahredux | +1-617-384-9141 | Skype:
rebekah.heacock
Berkman Center for Internet and Society | http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/

----------
You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list.

Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends
Mailing list members:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends

Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless
otherwise noted.






-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/812b2ced/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
----------
You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list.

Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends
Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends

Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless
otherwise noted.



From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Nov 14 11:40:09 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:40:09 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill
In-Reply-To: <CAApcLc+Q=+6yAkxJToQL225kWi+UTOdp0JGhwM-AJ+P3_tdOiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeVpBCPZkPH_WH+vgVcCKe04UU0NFPD1ac00y8d8e15_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAApcLc+Q=+6yAkxJToQL225kWi+UTOdp0JGhwM-AJ+P3_tdOiw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdv=9FKU0w5GNi42QHRxYcd+V8QDQS8ag+NN2KWzm32Kw@mail.gmail.com>

Regarding Eduardo's question, I suggest you take a look (with help of
Google translate :-) ) at this very clarifying interview CA has given
recently:

http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/112


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>wrote:

> Thanks a lot Carolina. This is extremely helpful to understand the
> domestic process in Brazil.
>
> I have a question to you and my fellow brazilian colleagues. You said in
> your email that the new version received great support from the Brazilian
> civil society. Does this support include the support of the new art. 11, 12
> and 13?
>
> I would like to receive the reactions/comments from other people in the
> network. Maybe I am missing something but those articles includes
> provisions that form me, first, are not very realistic from an
> implementation perspective, and second, if this idea is supported in
> Brazil, I don´t know how we will oppose the same idea for other countries
> that could use the provisions to go against local civil society groups.
>
> I copied below the articles mentioned above:
>
>   Art. 11. Any process of collection, storage, custody and treatment of
> records, personal data or communications by connection providers and
> Internet applications providers, in which at least one of these acts occurs
> in the national territory, shall respect Brazilian law, the rights to
> Privacy, and the confidentiality of personal data, of private
> communications and records.
>
> § 1 The provisions aforementioned apply to data collected in the national
> territory and the content of communications, in which at least one of the
> terminals is located in Brazil.
>
> § 2 The provisions aforementioned apply even if the activities are carried
> out by legal entity located abroad, provided that at least one member of
> the same economic group owns property/is established in Brazil.
>
> § 3 The connection providers and Internet applications provider shall
> provide, in the form of regulations, information that allow the
> verification regarding compliance with Brazilian legislation regarding the
> collection, custody, storage and processing of data, as well as how the
> provider respects the privacy and secrecy of communications.
>
> § 4 Decree shall regulate the procedure for finding violations of the
> provisions of this article.
>
> Article 12. The Executive Branch, through Decree, may force connection
> providers and Internet applications providers provided for in art. 11, who
> exercise their activities in an organized, professional and economic way,
> to install or use structures for storage, management and dissemination of
> data in the country, considering the size of the providers, its sales in
> Brazil and breadth of the service offering to the Brazilian public.
>
> Article 13. Without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative
> penalties, violations of the rules laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 12
> shall be subject, as appropriate, the following sanctions, applied
> individually or cumulatively:
>
> I - warning, indicating the deadline for corrective action;
>
> II - a fine of up to ten percent of the gross revenues of the economic
> group in Brazil in its last financial year, excluding taxes;
>
> III - Temporary suspension of activities involving the acts specified in
> Clauses 11 and 12, or
>
> IV - the prohibition of the exercise of activities that involve the acts
> referred to in Articles 11 and 12.
>
> Single paragraph. In the case of a foreign company, its subsidiary,
> branch, office or establishment in the country will be jointly and
> severally liable for payment of the penalties aforementioned.
>   I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Best
>
> e
>
>
>
> Eduardo
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> *** sorry for cross-posting ***
>>
>> during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of
>>  the Marco Civil made public last week.
>>
>> This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and
>> has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators.
>>
>> Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text,
>> the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its
>> translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however,
>> they do not mirror what was deleted.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> C
>>
>> --
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/bafa2af2/attachment.htm>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Thu Nov 14 15:40:06 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:40:06 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] 2 excellent new postings from ICANN CEO and Board Chair
Message-ID: <CACAaNxg6xM0NkT4DFD1AKtiz-b3tBELzfNZ7kh1GfFztJDGKPg@mail.gmail.com>

http://blog.icann.org/

rgds,

McTim

From kichango at gmail.com  Thu Nov 14 16:46:21 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:46:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian
 announcement for the Summit
In-Reply-To: <528479E0.706@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net>
	<528479E0.706@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9=097GXQJWs9MJugQSCz21qNeWxXZQtOODC1+JMPNs=g@mail.gmail.com>

Also looks fine by me.

m.


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote:
>
>  Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter
> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not representatives, for
> International Civil Society for information regarding the Summit will be
> good to legitimate and help our job here.
>
>
>
> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global civil
> society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its role in the
> proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any other tehcnical
> community led interface is of the highest priority at this stage. Dont want
> to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that
> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If we have
> got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would
> have been there at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we
> could have protested...
>
>
> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps
>
> --
>
>
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/f4bd6999/attachment.htm>

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Thu Nov 14 17:30:11 2013
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:30:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian
 announcement for the Summit
In-Reply-To: <528479E0.706@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com> <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <74590D17-196E-41D0-BB9E-920DB7AD7B02@post.harvard.edu>

Looks fine by me.

David


On Nov 14, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote:
>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter  
>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not  
>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information  
>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job  
>>> here.
>>
>>
>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global  
>> civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its  
>> role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any  
>> other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority  
>> at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have  
>> been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our  
>> earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication  
>> through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there  
>> at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have  
>> protested...
>
> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps
>
> -- 
> 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement  
> knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless  
> necessary.
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly  
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For  
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/76c712c1/attachment.htm>

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 14 17:55:30 2013
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:55:30 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] ACTION: Brazil & Germany UN Pro-Privacy Resolution Needs
 Your Help
In-Reply-To: <528553D3.3070006@eff.org>
References: <528553D3.3070006@eff.org>
Message-ID: <528554E2.7080703@eff.org>


Dear Best Bits coalition

Privacy International, Access, Center for Technology and Society.
Brazil), Center for Technology and Society at Fundacao Getulio Vargas,
Association for Progressive communications, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian
Internet & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), Center for Internet &
Society India and the Electronic Frontier Foundation seek your support
of a UN General Assembly resolution introduced by Germany and Brazil
last week and currently being debated in the General Assembly. The
draft resolution, "The right to privacy in the digital age"
(A/C.3/68/L.45), as drafted, presents a positive step toward
protecting communications privacy in light of mass surveillance
initiatives.

The draft resolution can be found here:

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.45

We fear that the positive elements of this draft resolution can be
negatively altered. Your support is needed to push back against such
efforts and to defend the draft resolution as currently written.

Potential attempts to undermine the resolution may revolve around
minimizing the language of the resolution to reflect what is already
in high-level documents (notably the ICCPR). The strongest impetus for
these changes is coming from the United States, who are seeking to
amend this document to accommodate some of its current, highly
questionable, foreign intelligence mass surveillance practices. This,
in turn, may limit any positive interpretive force the document might
have. Specific potential concerns include:

• Attempts to remove language aimed affirming that an interference
with privacy occurs when data is collected or monitored, as opposed to
when already collected data is accessed and ‘abused’;
• Attempts to remove any attempt to address issues arising from
extra-territorial surveillance;
• Attempts to change references to ‘communications’ to indicate
‘interception of private communications’, a term which often protects
the content of communications, but not the metadata;
• Attempts to shift language focusing on ‘illegal violations’ to
‘unlawful/arbitrary surveillance’, with unlawful implying inconsistent
with domestic law;
• Attempts to replace references to privacy as an ‘individual human
right’ with the language of the ICCPR text itself (arbitrary/unlawful
interference with privacy) and to generally remove any inference that
privacy is a general human right protected in numerous international
instruments; and
• Attempts to minimize text linking the privacy right to broader
democratic values.

We note that a weak or meaningless resolution that merely affirms
language already in existing international instruments will do little
to advance the protection of privacy in light of recent revelations,
and may be viewed as a loss.

The draft resolution will be voted at the UN General Assembly in a
week and a half. We hope you can take action by urging your national
governments, especially, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to sign on
to the Resolution and to do so in its original written and unamended
format.

To facilitate this, we have drafted a letter of support that can form
the basis of such an outreach initiative. Feel free to amend,
translate and personalize it as you see fit, or send it as is to your
respective ministries of foreign affairs or United Nations Permanent
Mission urging them to support the resolution.

The letter is available here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11PO741ECz_86p59_WjYliBqwYoPgn6-4fzRpLuxFUOg/edit

and attached to this email.

In a parallel track, we want to update you that we have over 290 NGOs
signatories to the Necessary and Proportionate Principles. We are now
opening the sign-ons to individual experts and to the general public.
We will be hopefully be doing a public launch of the
NecessaryandProportionate.org Action Center next week. We will keep
you posted. If you want to get more involved, please send me an email
to confirm your interest.


Kind Regards,

Joy Liddicoat. Association for Progressive Communications
Carly Nyst, Privacy International
Joana Varon, Center for Technology and Society CTS/FGV (Brazil)
Fabiola Carrion, Access
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
Elonnai Hickok, Center for Internet & Society India
Katitza Rodriguez, Electronic Frontier Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draftlettertoforeignministries07.11.13 (2).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 7545 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131114/ffeb307f/attachment.docx>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Nov 14 18:07:57 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:07:57 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian
 announcement for the Summit
In-Reply-To: <20131114105940.78057396@quill>
References: <CALTAiToiXNYEX=cxPszWUShQqOJztJ=r5Vd_5rpUwA1NYb3VZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net>
	<528479E0.706@ciroap.org>,<20131114105940.78057396@quill>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A644C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

+1  

(a few line letter noting cs liaisons already known is perhaps not quite the place for  a metaphysical debate on the nature of cs, tech community, life on earth, etc.; noting objection raised)
________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:59 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote:
> >> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter
> >> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not
> >> representatives, for International Civil Society for information
> >> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job
> >> here.
> >
> >
> > A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global
> > civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its
> > role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any
> > other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority
> > at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have
> > been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our
> > earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication
> > through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there
> > at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have
> > protested...
>
> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps

Looks good to me.

Greetings,
Norbert

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 14 23:36:06 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:36:06 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Report back with some options for open/closed lists
In-Reply-To: <20131113110416.GC5011@kusti.tarvainen.info>
References: <CALU7RQZomqVCnmDjG-5U7WU14-kZgHfKJ_-6RU0bNARvXur76A@mail.gmail.com> <20131113110416.GC5011@kusti.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <5285A4B6.2010305@ciroap.org>

On 13/11/13 19:04, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> On Nov 12 20:18, Deborah Brown (deborah at accessnow.org) wrote:
>
>> I'm reporting back from some discussions among
>> the interim steering committee* on different options for moving forward.
>> Here are the some options we came up with:
>>
>>    1. Everything on the public list (i.e. status quo)
>>    2. Using the open list as the default, and have the option of moving
>>    strategic conversations to the private list
>>    3. Using the open list as the default, and starting issue-specific lists
>>    for strategic discussions among civil society. This would follow the model
>>    of the [EC] list that was used to prepare Best Bits' submission to WGEC
>>    (welcoming suggestions to improve that model). Drafting and strategic
>>    discussions took place on the closed list and were reported back to the
>>    main list.
>>
>> Most of us on steering prefer option 3, but we could not come to an
>> agreement on whether or not the archives of emails on civil society list
>> should be public or only available to the members of the list.
> I would prefer option three with public archives.
>
> I would, however, also like to point out a possible middle ground:
> make the archives public with a delay.

Since we really need to be moving on with discussions now, and since it
seems that most people can live with option three, and since a few
people have already been subscribing to summit at lists.bestbits.net in
anticipation of option three being accepted, I'm going to plough ahead
and declare that subject-specific list ready for use.

Changing the list archives from public to private or to
public-with-delay (subject to technical feasibility) will not be a
problem if a consensus later emerges to do that.  So this debate is not
forever closed.

As a few people have complained, with some fairness, "oh no, not another
list to subscribe to", I'm going to make things slightly easier for you
by folding the private and steering lists into the summit list.  The
private and steering lists still exist independently, but if you are
subscribed to either of those, then by default you are subscribed to
summit also.  Please email me off-list if you are on private or steering
and don't want to be on summit.

However the main Best Bits list, is not being folded into the summit
list, so if you are only a member of the main list, you will need to
subscribe to summit (or private) separately at
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws.

I'm also cognisant that JFC Morfin has set up another summit specific
list in conjunction with this bramsummit.org wiki, and normally I
wouldn't want to ride roughshod over that by opening a new list. 
However as there was the desire for a Best Bits summit list, and as
there have been no messages posted to the bramsummit.org list yet, I
hope neither he nor anyone else will mind.

Please forward this to any other civil society participants whom you
know want to discuss the summit but who aren't on the main Best Bits
list.  If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me or the
interim steering committee know.

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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/17b58595/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/17b58595/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 15 01:25:05 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:55:05 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: MAG nomination process via Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <5284830B.5020102@ciroap.org>
References: <5281A145.3050705@ciroap.org> <5284830B.5020102@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5285BE41.5080509@itforchange.net>

Jeremy

Am very behind seeing and responding to emails, but noticed this one and 
wanted to make the following comment:

I dont see the need for BB to get into making recs for MAG membership 
when IGC seems to do a good - and much better insitutionalised - way of 
doing. If the fear is that some people may not be on the IGC - which i 
not too sure of - BB can forward nomination to the IGC process.

However, if BB just insists on having its own MAG nominaiton process, I 
oppose steering committee on its own making the selections (a post facto 
confirmation by the list - the process of which I could not understand, 
is of no use bec no one from the list is going to object to any name 
which is listed as selected by the steering committee) .... This does 
not go with BB's platform image projection.... and in any case does not 
look like a good process to follow.

parminder


On Thursday 14 November 2013 01:30 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 12/11/13 11:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> Otherwise, Best Bits has also been developing a draft process for 
>> nominating representatives to external groups, which may suit those 
>> who aren't primarily associated with the other civil society groups 
>> or networks.  The process is still open for discussion on the 
>> procedure wiki at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/.  The 
>> process, which is very loose compared to the IGC's more formal 
>> procedure, simply provides as follows:
>>
>>   * The steering committee shall call for expressions of interest on
>>     the main list.
>>   * Selection criteria will be decided on a case-by-case basis and
>>     will be shared when the steering committee publicises the call,
>>     but at a very minimum geographical diversity (if not balance) and
>>     gender balance should be taken into account.
>>   * The steering committee will select a proposed slate of nominees,
>>     taking into account those who expressed interest.
>>   * The proposed nominees will be posted back to the main list and
>>     approved by consensus.
>>
>
> Further to the above, here are some criteria based on a set previously 
> used by the IGC, with point six broadened slightly (not everyone on 
> the interim steering group has given input into these, but nobody has 
> objected so far either):
>
>   * Must be active civil society participants
>   * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions if
>     possible
>   * Should attempt to achieve gender balance
>   * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill and
>     knowledge set, age, disability, etc.
>   * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS
>     updated on developments
>   * Should be people who have shown some ability in advocacy with
>     governments and the private sector in order to help achieve CS
>     positions
>
> So far there has been one nomination received to the 
> steering at lists.bestbits.net list.  If you prefer to send your 
> nomination to the main list, please feel free to do that instead or also.
>
> As to the suggestion that we collaborate with the IGC on a slate of 
> nominees, there seems to be support for this.  So far the IGC has 
> selected its nomcom, and its slate of candidates will be selected by 
> next Wednesday from nominations received.  There may also be 
> nominations coming from other organisations or networks (APC, Diplo, IRP).
>
> Whilst it is different to actually merge the lists of nominees from 
> each civil society group or network, because the processes are quite 
> different, we can explore whether it is possible to at least send the 
> nominations together, while separating the lists of nominees and 
> explaining the different nomination processes.
>
> This would be a modest step towards the longer-term goal of a unified 
> civil society nominating committee.
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/69bbaf73/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov  1 06:31:03 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:31:03 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTovR0t6vcusthUmbwXQO74O17=ypjj93GuE01wCpq9pSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTovR0t6vcusthUmbwXQO74O17=ypjj93GuE01wCpq9pSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <527382E7.2050903@ciroap.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks Joana for this really excellent report.  I agree with what Ian
and Michael posted in response.  I've already said that I don't think we
should rule out pulling out of this coalition/dialogue, if we can do so
in solidarity (ie. if they won't simply drag in some other civil society
representatives).  But for now, as Ian suggested, let's keep a cautious
watching brief.

In the medium term though, we are going to have to work out a way to
nominate civil society representatives - either to the
coalition/dialogue, or at least, to whatever representative structures
develop around the Brazil summit.  As Best Bits we shouldn't and don't
purport to cover all of civil society, but that needn't stop us from
making suggestions.

So, a priority that I would like us to address (along with the other
streams of work coming out of the Best Bits meeting in Bali - which we
are yet to properly document) is to develop concrete proposals for civil
society representative processes, which /may/ be needed for the
coalition/dialogue, and which will /definitely/ be needed for the Brazil
summit.

This is /in addition/ to work needed to develop /substantive/ proposals
for the Brazil summit.  Both are important.  So it is bad timing that I
am leaving for an OECD meeting tomorrow and that my own contributions to
this process may be delayed.  But at the same time grateful that we have
such an amazing coalition who will be able to address these urgent work
priorities.

The other outstanding question, as Joana alluded to, is /where/ we
debate and develop our proposals, and on this question I will have
another email to send soon about the open/closed list debate.

On 01/11/13 02:34, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Hi.
>
> While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list
still remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on
in the very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with
Fadi and I* representatives, which I have reported a few days ago.
Carlos, Carolina and Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also,
there are others BB subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue
list that may want to weigh in.
>
> I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to
that meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And
since the meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of
us, plus Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate
civil society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could
read in the report, that meeting took a different direction and was
focused on building the "coalition". So, in the near future, we should
probably re-address the issue of representatives, and the possibility of
broadening CS participation beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue
to engage.
>
> *Summary*
>
> After the meeting, held on Oct, 25^th ,a closed mailing list
(i-coordination at nro.net <mailto:i-coordination at nro.net>) has been
created for the drafting the concept note and debating the name of the
coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the following
organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda,
internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2),
piuha, google, sidn, isoc.
>
> 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the
difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the
term "coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open
dialogue for the Evolution of Internet Governance
>
> 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by
Adiel, from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name,
people got mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are
marked in the attachment as well.
>
> Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no
government or representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any
extent. I've also sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming
events were only events from the technical communities and there is no
language on human rights in the text, just on business and innovation.
No replies here received on these issues whatsoever, but the drafting is
just starting and is open for our inputs.
>
> 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today
a thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an
interim steering committee (about20 people, as far as I understood, the
same as who were at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with
their respective "stakeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list,
the reason was that the list is "receiving every day requests to add new
people (specially from business community)" and the proposal was to
"create a clear demarcation between the large group of people ready to
engage into the dialogue and a subset of it that will facilitate and
coordinate the whole process."
>
> It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee
which raises questions about the composition of the group (until now
there is no balance in terms of number of representatives from each
stakeholder group). This proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised
by oracle about representativeness.
>
> In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:
>
> >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue?
>
> >> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the
Brazilian summit? ( There is no governments or international
organizations in the concept note. Carolina and I made that point a few
days ago, but it was not heard until now)
>
> >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?
>
> Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our
previous thread about the first report. Another report, about our the
meeting with the Brazilian gov is coming soon.
>
> If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a)
one regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian
government) + the other trying to reach a common ground with the
Dialogue. Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly
and comprehensive way.
>
> all the best
>
> joana
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>


- -- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJzgucACgkQ9nWq4tKrIiDqnQCdHpiAZ1u0HLfUlzh4ONWWR/uD
1qIAn2tB5t8VpaKM2PgGQzJEsQ3xBdZH
=kELV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/a8166d13/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Nov 15 01:46:38 2013
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:46:38 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com> <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
Message-ID: <5285C34E.7070308@cis-india.org>

Dear Norbert and all,
A number of people, including some of the Steering Committees /
coordinators mentioned, take part in civil society discussions not as
representatives of organizations, but in an individual capacity.

If we ask NGOs to declare their sources of funding as a transparency
measure, should we require of these individuals, as a colleague of mine
suggested in Bali recently, the declaration of their income tax returns?

Regards,
Pranesh

Norbert Bollow [2013-11-08 23:24]:
> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
> to the coordinators of the IGC 
> 
> 
> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
> potentially highly problematic.
> 
> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
> least, shaping and directing that capacity. 
> 
> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that
> could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests.
> 
> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such
> as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear
> relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
> 
> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
> where a US government agency is among the funders.
> 
> 
> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship,
> I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention
> of entering into any such funding relationships in the future.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>>
>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>> through the US State Department, see below:
>>
>>
>>
>>  Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals:
>> Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia
>> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>
>> November 8, 2013
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>  Department of State
>>
>> *Public Notice*
>>
>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals:
>> *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia
>> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>
>> *SUMMARY*
>>
>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule
>> of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>>
>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>> *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your application.
>> For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission
>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at *
>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>> *
>>
>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>>
>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>> following issues:
>>
>> *Moldova*
>>
>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):*
>> DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in
>> Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and
>> political conditions. This program should focus on one of three
>> areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals
>> should focus on more than one minority group and may include the
>> Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities.
>> Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they
>> will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than
>> one of the categories.
>>
>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and
>> national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities
>> could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic
>> leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to
>> participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities
>> for participants to network with other minority leaders both within
>> Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting
>> training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights
>> and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills.
>>
>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova.
>> The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance,
>> and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth
>> activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise
>> awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals
>> should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint
>> activities.
>>
>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps,
>> internship opportunities, or language training. The program should
>> focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational
>> opportunities and outcomes.
>>
>> *Turkey*
>>
>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil
>> society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’
>> awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the
>> political process. The program should support civil society in
>> advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and
>> protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their
>> right to participate in the political process. The program should
>> build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring
>> together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized
>> groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and
>> government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of
>> civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these
>> coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on
>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government
>> accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals
>> should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to
>> help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for
>> political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>> strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in
>> Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society
>> groups.
>>
>> *Azerbaijan*
>>
>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will
>> encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote
>> an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system
>> of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil
>> society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting
>> civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach.
>> Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote
>> democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of
>> independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could
>> include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the
>> capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in
>> key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy;
>> support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive
>> debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations;
>> linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability
>> and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants
>> to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots
>> organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or
>> fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful
>> proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong
>> knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an
>> established ability to work with regional independent civil society.
>>
>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>>
>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions
>> (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>> .
>>
>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>>
>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section
>> up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to
>> use the given space effectively.
>>
>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per
>> country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or
>> themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request
>> less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling
>> ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.*
>>
>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov*
>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission;
>> and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the
>> solicitation and this document.
>>
>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals
>> have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov*
>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov*
>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>> conversion processes.*
>>
>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of
>> State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing
>> proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed.
>>
>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>>
>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>>
>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>> organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships,
>> will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic,
>> research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed
>> competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science-
>> related projects unless they have an explicit component related to
>> the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on
>> commercial law or economic development will be rated as
>> non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost
>> sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and
>> budget narrative.
>>
>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for
>> any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist
>> organization, whether or not elected members of government.
>>
>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance
>> with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>>
>> This request for proposals will appear on
>> *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s website,
>> *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>>
>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>>
>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel
>> free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov*
>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State Department
>> officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas -
>> may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire
>> proposal review process is completed.
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> Stay connected with the State Department:
> 
> 

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
--------------------
Postgraduate Associate & Access to Knowledge Fellow
Information Society Project, Yale Law School
T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/ebdf4e2b/attachment.sig>

From kbankston at cdt.org  Fri Nov 15 08:21:21 2013
From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:21:21 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Personal Announcement: departing CDT this week,
 starting at New America's Open Technology Institute next week
References: <4B280C5E-4720-4832-AA9A-9C0375F6E8B1@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <8D6A1DBC-0E31-43CD-B5BF-2888EB8F072B@cdt.org>

Looks like I sent to the old "Best Bits" address yesterday, pardon.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org>
> Subject: Personal Announcement: departing CDT this week, starting at New America's Open Technology Institute next week
> Date: November 14, 2013 10:30:18 AM EST
> To: "bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Bits" <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>, "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>, "webwewant at googlegroups.com" <webwewant at googlegroups.com>
> 
> Hello, IRP, Best Bits and Web We Want folk--and apologies for cross-posting, I'm going to be hitting a lot of lists with this announcement today:
> 
> As some of you have already heard, I am leaving my position as CDT's Free Expression Director effective tomorrow, and starting at the New America Foundation on Monday as the Policy Director of the Open Technology Institute, where my new email address will be bankston at opentechinstitute.org (and where my new office will be just down the hall from Gene Kimmelman's, another very active participant in these lists).
> 
> An announcement about the move is here: http://newamerica.net/pressroom/2013/press_release_new_america_foundation_s_open_technology_institute_announces_kevin_bank.  (The original start date listed in the announcement, this past Monday, was pushed back to accommodate my testifying yesterday to the Senate Judiciary privacy subcommittee on CDT's surveillance transparency work, in which many of you have played a part--and thanks for that!)
> 
> As you can imagine, I am both sad to be leaving CDT--where I've greatly enjoyed working with all of you and the incredible CDT team--and excited to be starting in my new position at another incredibly exciting and fast-growing tech policy outfit.  I hope and expect I will continue to work with many of you, and CDT, on a broad range of issues.
> 
> I'm quite proud of the work I've been able to do at CDT and with this group's help, but I must admit I am most proud and excited to be able to say that my duties are being passed on to the ever-capable Emma Llanso (ellanso at cdt.org), who--after more than four years working as an attorney at CDT doing incredible free expression work both internationally and domestically--will be taking over the Free Expression directorship and the leadership of CDT's Free Expression Working Group.  An announcement about her transition is here: https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/emma-llans%C3%B3-named-director-cdt%E2%80%99s-free-expression-project.  Many of you have worked with her already and know her as an invaluably expert, conscientious, thoughtful and politically astute advocate; the rest of you soon will, and I'm very excited to see her moving into this well-earned leadership role.
> 
> I am not going far--really, just a few blocks!--and I will still be deeply involved in many of the same issues, including continuing to collaborate with this group.  So this really isn't a "goodbye".  More of a "see you later."  So...
> 
> See you later,
> Kevin Bankston
> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director at Center for Democracy & Technology
> ...until tomorrow at 5 PM.
> ____________________________________
> Kevin S. Bankston
> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202.407.8834 direct
> 202.637.0968 fax
> kbankston at cdt.org
> 
> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/220f359b/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Nov 15 13:28:06 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:28:06 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] new paper on Multistakeholder Internet Governance
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAc=qGg+6TxpqxJw8-Wr=29v=ux8KWFNRJkkLCPJO-O+6w@mail.gmail.com>

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2354377

DeNardis, Dr. Laura and Raymond, Mark, Thinking Clearly About
Multistakeholder Internet Governance (November 14, 2013). Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=

*Abstract: *
Efforts to study and practice Internet governance start, virtually without
exception, from the premise that the Internet is governed by an innovative,
unusual (perhaps unique) ‘multistakeholder’ model. Preserving that model is
a primary goal for the broader Internet community as well as for many
governments, though not for all. Viewing multistakeholderism as a
teleological goal for Internet governance creates several problems. First,
multistakeholderism is often elevated as a value in itself rather than as a
possible approach to meeting more salient public interest objectives such
as preserving Internet interoperability, stability, security, and openness.
Second, multistakeholder governance may not be appropriate in every
functional area of Internet governance. Internet coordination is not a
monolithic practice but rather a multilayered series of tasks of which some
are appropriately relegated to the private sector, some the purview of
traditional nation-state governance or international treaty negotiations,
and some more appropriately multistakeholder. It is a misnomer to speak not
only of multistakeholder governance but also of Internet governance as a
single thing.

The concept of multistakeholderism can also serve as a proxy for broader
political struggles or be deployed as an impediment to the types of
Internet coordination necessary to promote conditions of responsible
governance. For example, governments with repressive information policies
can advocate for top-down and formalized multistakeholderism to gain
additional power in areas in which they have traditionally not had
jurisdiction. These types of efforts can result in multilateral rather than
multistakeholder approaches with non-governmental actors limited from
participating in formal deliberations and lacking any meaningful voting
power. Alternatively, companies and other actors with vested interests in
current governance arrangements can deploy multistakeholderism in a manner
either meant to exclude new entrants (whether public or private) with
incommensurate interests and values or to preserve incumbent market
advantage.

This paper suggests that multistakeholderism should not be viewed as a
value in itself applied homogenously to all Internet governance functions.
Rather, the appropriate approach to responsible Internet governance
requires determining what types of administration are optimal for promoting
a balance of interoperability, innovation, free expression and operational
stability in any particular functional and political context. Doing so
requires conceptual and theoretical tools that have not yet been developed.
Accordingly, the paper proceeds in three parts. First, it presents a more
granular taxonomy and understanding of Internet governance functions –
differentiating between, for example, cybersecurity governance, Internet
standards setting, and the policymaking function of private information
intermediaries. Second, it performs the same task of disaggregation with
respect to multistakeholderism. It presents distinct varieties of
multistakeholder Internet governance (which differ according to the
varieties of actors involved and the nature of authority relations between
them) and sets these arrangements in a broader context of modalities for
accomplishing global governance in other issue areas. Such an approach
contributes both to the study and practice of Internet governance, and to
scholarship in International Relations and global governance.

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/db70db75/attachment.htm>

From Lea at gp-digital.org  Fri Nov 15 13:29:08 2013
From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:29:08 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] UNGA res on WSIS+10 released- initial analysis
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D03E9B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Dear friends,

As you may be aware, the annual resolution on ICT4D was introduced at the 2nd Committee of the General Assembly yesterday. You can it find attached and at the following link: http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N13/552/87/pdf/N1355287.pdf?OpenElement (link seems to be down at the moment)

The resolution is meant to, among other things, provide the modalities for the WSIS review. It is actually quite broad in scope.

An informal group of international human rights/ civil society organisations (Access, CDT, CTS/FGV, Global Partners) prepared an initial analysis of the resolution. In case useful, you can find it attached. We welcome your feedback either on or off list.

Some key points:

*         The draft resolution clearly calls for a WSIS Summit to be held in 2015.

*         It also calls for an establishment of an  inter-governmental preparatory committee.

*         The resolution is currently being debated in the 2nd Committee and should be adopted there before the end of the month. It should be adopted by the full General Assembly in the 2nd or 3rd week of December.

*         The resolution was tabled by the G77 governments (coordinated by Fiji). Brazil, Guyana, and Malaysia are leading on the drafting.

We are also sharing this analysis with other stakeholders, including governments negotiating the text. Please feel free to circulate this and to use, adapt, or build on this initial analysis as you see fit.

Kind regards,

Deborah, Joana, Lea, and Matthew


Lea Kaspar | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M +44 (0)7583 929 216 | Skype: l.kaspar
gp-digital.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/f38d4d4d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: InitialanalysisAC.268L.40.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 382588 bytes
Desc: InitialanalysisAC.268L.40.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/f38d4d4d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AC.268L.40 .pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 69413 bytes
Desc: AC.268L.40 .pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/f38d4d4d/attachment-0001.pdf>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Nov 15 15:38:34 2013
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:38:34 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] new paper on Multistakeholder Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAc=qGg+6TxpqxJw8-Wr=29v=ux8KWFNRJkkLCPJO-O+6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc=qGg+6TxpqxJw8-Wr=29v=ux8KWFNRJkkLCPJO-O+6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1RYha4jrWrTyzobO4SyJRdMBQ705O3rHVb8gmaBO2gKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Carol. I had the chance to see the presentation of this paper
during IGF Bali. Very interesting indeed.
Marília


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2354377
>
> DeNardis, Dr. Laura and Raymond, Mark, Thinking Clearly About
> Multistakeholder Internet Governance (November 14, 2013). Available at
> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=
>
> *Abstract: *
> Efforts to study and practice Internet governance start, virtually without
> exception, from the premise that the Internet is governed by an innovative,
> unusual (perhaps unique) ‘multistakeholder’ model. Preserving that model is
> a primary goal for the broader Internet community as well as for many
> governments, though not for all. Viewing multistakeholderism as a
> teleological goal for Internet governance creates several problems. First,
> multistakeholderism is often elevated as a value in itself rather than as a
> possible approach to meeting more salient public interest objectives such
> as preserving Internet interoperability, stability, security, and openness.
> Second, multistakeholder governance may not be appropriate in every
> functional area of Internet governance. Internet coordination is not a
> monolithic practice but rather a multilayered series of tasks of which some
> are appropriately relegated to the private sector, some the purview of
> traditional nation-state governance or international treaty negotiations,
> and some more appropriately multistakeholder. It is a misnomer to speak not
> only of multistakeholder governance but also of Internet governance as a
> single thing.
>
> The concept of multistakeholderism can also serve as a proxy for broader
> political struggles or be deployed as an impediment to the types of
> Internet coordination necessary to promote conditions of responsible
> governance. For example, governments with repressive information policies
> can advocate for top-down and formalized multistakeholderism to gain
> additional power in areas in which they have traditionally not had
> jurisdiction. These types of efforts can result in multilateral rather than
> multistakeholder approaches with non-governmental actors limited from
> participating in formal deliberations and lacking any meaningful voting
> power. Alternatively, companies and other actors with vested interests in
> current governance arrangements can deploy multistakeholderism in a manner
> either meant to exclude new entrants (whether public or private) with
> incommensurate interests and values or to preserve incumbent market
> advantage.
>
> This paper suggests that multistakeholderism should not be viewed as a
> value in itself applied homogenously to all Internet governance functions.
> Rather, the appropriate approach to responsible Internet governance
> requires determining what types of administration are optimal for promoting
> a balance of interoperability, innovation, free expression and operational
> stability in any particular functional and political context. Doing so
> requires conceptual and theoretical tools that have not yet been developed.
> Accordingly, the paper proceeds in three parts. First, it presents a more
> granular taxonomy and understanding of Internet governance functions –
> differentiating between, for example, cybersecurity governance, Internet
> standards setting, and the policymaking function of private information
> intermediaries. Second, it performs the same task of disaggregation with
> respect to multistakeholderism. It presents distinct varieties of
> multistakeholder Internet governance (which differ according to the
> varieties of actors involved and the nature of authority relations between
> them) and sets these arrangements in a broader context of modalities for
> accomplishing global governance in other issue areas. Such an approach
> contributes both to the study and practice of Internet governance, and to
> scholarship in International Relations and global governance.
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/851f4e36/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Fri Nov 15 18:27:42 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:27:42 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Announcement about the International Conference of IG in
 Brazil: next Monday, 10 am BR
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqW_GCmT9xi2D4RkNEUrEYVrzWr+vFruuW1y3E9DXXkUQ@mail.gmail.com>

It's scheduled:
http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/351157.html

Looking for folks in Brasilia to attend.

best

joana
-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131115/12f7b2bc/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Nov 16 08:42:37 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:42:37 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] official announcement of the BR Conference
Message-ID: <5287764D.1060808@cafonso.ca>

Here is the (my) English version of the announcement published in the 
MCTI portal.

Now we know at least the official name: International Conference on 
Global Internet Governance.

frt rgds

--c.a.

=====================
http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/351157.html

International Conference on Global Internet Governance

The Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), Marco Antonio 
Raupp, of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, and of Foreign Affairs, Luiz 
Alberto Figueiredo, will announce on Monday (18) at 10 AM [Brasília 
Summer Time], the International Conference on Global Internet 
Governance, which will be held in Brazil in 2014.

The announcement will take place in the Councils Room of MCTI and will 
be broadcast via videoconference to the 48th meeting of the Internet 
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), held in Buenos Aires 
(Argentina).

After the event, the ministers will be available for a chat with the 
media on issues relating to Internet governance and cyberspace.

service

What: Announcement of the International Conference on Global Internet 
Governance
Date : 18/11/2013
Time : 10 AM Brasília Summer Time
Location : Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI)
Address: Esplanade of the Ministries, Block E, 2nd floor, Brasilia
Press contact : Caroline Rabbit (Ascom MCTI) - (+55-61) 9644-3096 / 
(+55-61) 2033-7515

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Nov 16 10:54:28 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:54:28 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] full title of BR conference
Message-ID: <jur4fgkb6fk5gtdc0aefgrdr.1384617268387@email.android.com>

Hi,

I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be:

Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance
Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet
Much better! ;)




------------
C. A. Afonso
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131116/a574cbf8/attachment.htm>

From pouzin at well.com  Sat Nov 16 11:19:36 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:19:36 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] full title of BR conference
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4aHXyAXq7K3tktxp7p5xV9n+NKfS9J55r-rLqS0k0LZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <jur4fgkb6fk5gtdc0aefgrdr.1384617268387@email.android.com> <CAMz5XN4aHXyAXq7K3tktxp7p5xV9n+NKfS9J55r-rLqS0k0LZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYqTxuOpHCU2j=6LPbFzSCSS_rUK0nV8gNOW-EQz76YQrw@mail.gmail.com>

In American English (Webster) the word global carries a connotation of
totality, homogeneity, along with unification, centralization and hegemony
(e.g. internet). In other words *global does not include subsidiarity and
diversity*. No wonder it is used ad nauseum in PR blah..

World(wide) is more appropriate, as there is no hint of homogeneity, only
of geographical presence.

Louis
- - -

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be:
>
>  Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance
> Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet
>
> Much better! ;)
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131116/e98791a7/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Nov 16 12:06:59 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:06:59 -0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference
Message-ID: <el9ibk519v9054fr6l8jpyfv.1384621345354@email.android.com>

Interesting thoughts, Louis. But remember that the ITU uses to call its conferences "world this and that" and they are usually the counterexample for diversity and such.

frt rgds

c.a.

------------
C. A. Afonso

-------- Original message --------
From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> 
Date: 16-11-2013  14:19  (GMT-03:00) 
To: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,i-coordination at nro.net,	chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org 
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference 
 
In American English (Webster) the word global carries a connotation of totality, homogeneity, along with unification, centralization and hegemony (e.g. internet). In other words global does not include subsidiarity and diversity. No wonder it is used ad nauseum in PR blah..

World(wide) is more appropriate, as there is no hint of homogeneity, only of geographical presence.
   
Louis
- - -

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
Hi,

I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be:

Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance
Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet
Much better! ;)

------------
C. A. Afonso

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131116/0d042fa1/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Fri Nov  1 08:19:32 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:19:32 +0000
Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with
 fadi et all
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdTn273vJO3GJMvq4Vy15f7V7nVLbWHSZ0Xp2xwev=4mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTojBK1+XPk1feU7NdwjLYrQ5uzZDyZp4f=EwAVesygPZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CALTAiTrcaXg4g1q159253=ozNxoh6KMwbJOJ_j1DLm4QCzwixg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAK-FJAecka2s+=Ror16xq6PU0-QABZ=ruJPaC66QtH6NwYr=6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org>
	<DDDA06A2-904C-4452-97A5-98ED60BC9EF8@istaff.org>
	<CAJqNAHBb8ukTb6MZHt4bpY97PkT63pevJSyVrgPeaa7Kmwrz_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAApcLcKqKZQLENCFKHOTgS9b3XZQ7xqg65bOOyc+h5vAx3zh_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557BBBE10@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <CAK-FJAdTn273vJO3GJMvq4Vy15f7V7nVLbWHSZ0Xp2xwev=4mw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F03520651DCB@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Dear all

+1 from me in terms of the distinction between Best Bits as a platform that gathers certain organizations/individuals under a civil society rubric to discuss and facilitate certain actions rather than a network that claims to represent all possible actors in this space so here +1 from me to the point Eduardo Bertoni raises as well.

Best
MF


From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini
Sent: 31 October 2013 17:31
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Anja Kovacs; John Curran; Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all

+1 on Andrew regarding my understanding of Best Bits

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
I think the precise position is that Best Bits is a platform that enables action/collaboration.  As a platform it therefore does not sign letters  in its own right - a letter goes from the organisations willing to sign it directly not BB itself.  It's an important distinction and one we need to be careful about.

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336> | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597<tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597> | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>

From: ebertoni65 at gmail.com<mailto:ebertoni65 at gmail.com> [mailto:ebertoni65 at gmail.com<mailto:ebertoni65 at gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Eduardo Bertoni
Sent: 31 October 2013 16:32

To: Anja Kovacs
Cc: John Curran; Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all

Dear all,

I jump (late) to this debate. My reaction is, perhaps, more related to the core of BestBits. Something that I asked in Bali, and frankly, I didn´t get any answer. For me the core question is about what BestBits is. Is it a platform, that NGOs and other could use for debate and at some point use the technological platform to work on letters or statements? Is it a network, from where ALL the participants have a voice, have the chance to open deliberations, and at the end, reach to decisions to execute some concrete actions ON BEHALF of the network, meaning ALL the organizations? Is it a network where decisions are delegated to some groups?

I was very concern with the language used in the past to present, for example, the last letters or statements. Concrete example: I heard that the letter to the President of Brazil was a letter coming from BestBits. Well, I didn´t signed the letter and I think that I participate in Best Bits. In fact was a letter signed by a group of people or organizations, not BY Best Bits. Am I wrong?

Maybe I am introducing a philosophical discussion, maybe is something already discussed that I don´t know, maybe some people use the word platform and network as synonymous. What I strongly believe is this: if it is not clear what BestBits is and how takes decisions, we will have a never end discussion.

Best

Eduardo

Eduardo

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
Dear all,
I have been in favour of keeping some discussions closed, at least in the early stages, for quite a while, and have been so for the reasons John and Kivuva point out: other stakeholder groups do so all the time, and a strategic argument to keep parts of a conversation limited to a smaller group does not mean that conversation cannot be reported back on to a larger group. As long as the latter happens, need more closed conversations really be a problem?
As again confirmed during the Best Bits meeting, two specific characteristics of Best Bits as a network are that it is action-oriented and that it seeks to bridge the differences and disagreements between the Global South and North.
To my mind, the strategy of being transparent at all times is one of the main reasons why action is often inhibited and civil society is often less effective than it could be. This is not only because we put all our cards on the table all the time - something which puts other stakeholders at an advantage. It is also because fully open lists do not encourage sharing certain kinds of information and ideas that could actually help to massively improve effectiveness of civil society action (and as is the case so often, perhaps Global South civil society is perhaps more vulnerable here than Global North civil society).

In fact, if Best Bits has been working, it is because so much is actually done by small groups of people who want to do something, trust each other, start coordinating, and then bring their ideas, once crystallised, to the main list (what are now called "fluid working groups" in BB lingo ;)

If we ignore this reality, this will only be at our own peril.

I don't see transparency as an end in itself, but is a means to an end, which is the creation of a level playing field. Because of power differentials, different stakeholder groups are differently placed in this field, and whatever strategies we decide on should keep this in mind. The redistribution of power should drive our actions, not transparency as such.
Thanks and best regards,
Anja

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



--
Carolina Rossini
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open Technology Institute
New America Foundation
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/10f25717/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sat Nov 16 12:32:35 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:32:35 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference
In-Reply-To: <el9ibk519v9054fr6l8jpyfv.1384621345354@email.android.com>
References: <el9ibk519v9054fr6l8jpyfv.1384621345354@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Not to debate semantics...but ok I will:

'globalization' carries connotations as Louis states;

whereas 'global' could imply...in all our global diversity, gee are we managing to muck up the climate.

For example.
________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca]
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:06 PM
To: Louis Pouzin (well)
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,; i-coordination at nro.net; chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference

Interesting thoughts, Louis. But remember that the ITU uses to call its conferences "world this and that" and they are usually the counterexample for diversity and such.

frt rgds

c.a.

------------
C. A. Afonso



-------- Original message --------
From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com>
Date: 16-11-2013 14:19 (GMT-03:00)
To: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,i-coordination at nro.net, chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference


In American English (Webster) the word global carries a connotation of totality, homogeneity, along with unification, centralization and hegemony (e.g. internet). In other words global does not include subsidiarity and diversity. No wonder it is used ad nauseum in PR blah..

World(wide) is more appropriate, as there is no hint of homogeneity, only of geographical presence.

Louis
- - -

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca<mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
Hi,

I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be:

Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance
Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet
Much better! ;)

------------
C. A. Afonso

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131116/fc23dd87/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Nov 16 13:24:18 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:24:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference
In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.sy
 r.edu>
References: <el9ibk519v9054fr6l8jpyfv.1384621345354@email.android.com>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <mailman.73.1642081814.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131116/f2514fcb/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Nov 16 14:42:26 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:42:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference
In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.sy r.edu>
References: <el9ibk519v9054fr6l8jpyfv.1384621345354@email.android.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <88E92C69-A9A7-4F4C-8349-E6F2CEE41D4A@cafonso.ca>

Do not lose much time on this exegesis -- it is already good news the event got this title, and there is not much that can be done to change it now.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 16/11/2013, at 15:24, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> 
> At 18:32 16/11/2013, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>> 'globalization' carries connotations as Louis states;
> 
> Whole = world + bonus (the whole is more than the sum of its parts).
> 
> in American: world = global
> in French and many languages: whole = global.
> 
> The difference is the "bonus". In our case it is documented by the pseudo-T&A (i.e. ISOC & W3C) community as a "Huge Bounty" resulting from OpenStand paradigm (cf. RFC 6852). Not from FLOSS, not from non-US Govs, not from non-US industries, not from lead-users, not from end-users, not from ITU, not from ISO, not from everyone money. 
> 
> The target for 40 years ( http://thebugofthe.net) is to make sure that the bonus (i.e. the intelligent use or people's "brainware") is forgotten and "benefits humanity" ... through the statUS-quo. The Brazilan serenade is just the n-th remake of the same swindle. Frankly, at the end it becomes quite boring.
> 
> jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131116/1a61a2b6/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Nov 16 23:26:10 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 05:26:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference
In-Reply-To: <88E92C69-A9A7-4F4C-8349-E6F2CEE41D4A@cafonso.ca>
References: <el9ibk519v9054fr6l8jpyfv.1384621345354@email.android.com>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <88E92C69-A9A7-4F4C-8349-E6F2CEE41D4A@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <mailman.74.1642081814.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131117/0d4d3b13/attachment.htm>

From glaser at cgi.br  Sat Nov 16 22:23:32 2013
From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:23:32 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Announcement of the "Global Multistakeholder Meeting
 on,the Future on Internet Governance
Message-ID: <528836B4.9080108@cgi.br>


Dear All,

The Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), the Minister 
of Communications (MC) and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs (MRE) decided to announce next Monday, 
November 18, that Brazil will
host a multistakeholder event on the future on internet governance 
called: /*"Global Multistakeholder
Meeting on *//*the Future on Internet Governance"*/. The announcement 
will focus on the offer of Brazil to
host this event informing the date and the city where it will take place.

Details such as the organization, participants and the dynamic of the 
meeting will be announced later
together with representatives of other sectors and entities related to 
the Internet Governance.

regards

Hartmut Glaser




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131117/613bea2e/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Nov 17 08:11:29 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:11:29 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] MAG nomination process via Best Bits
In-Reply-To: <5285BE41.5080509@itforchange.net>
References: <5281A145.3050705@ciroap.org> <5284830B.5020102@ciroap.org> <5285BE41.5080509@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <FF853C2A-23B2-4CAC-8587-75D98B7E78B8@ciroap.org>

On 15 Nov 2013, at 2:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> I dont see the need for BB to get into making recs for MAG membership when IGC seems to do a good - and much better insitutionalised - way of doing. If the fear is that some people may not be on the IGC - which i not too sure of - BB can forward nomination to the IGC process.
> 
> However, if BB just insists on having its own MAG nominaiton process, I oppose steering committee on its own making the selections (a post facto confirmation by the list - the process of which I could not understand, is of no use bec no one from the list is going to object to any name which is listed as selected by the steering committee) .... This does not go with BB's platform image projection.... and in any case does not look like a good process to follow.

The steering committee would not be making selections, just suggestions to the main list.  But in this case I don't think that it will be necessary to do even that, because we've only received one nomination so far, so we will doubtless be suggesting the list approve their inclusion by default.  (A good reason for the low interest may be that the IGF MAG appointment is probably not the most important issue that we face right now - there are more important things to be addressing with the Brazil conference, the UN on surveillance, the TPP IP chapter, etc.)

You are right that there are definitely some participants in Best Bits who are not, and don't want to be, members of the IGC, and I'm not sure that telling such people to nominate through the IGC is the right answer, because the IGC nomcom would not have as much reason to select other civil society representatives who are not involved with the IGC.  Having said that, in this instance the chair of the IGC nomcom has suggested that we could also forward our nominees to the IGC nomcom for consideration, so we can do exactly what you have suggested, whilst maintaining our own process too.

Note that there are other groups too that are doing their own nominations, with whom we've been discussing and there's been a general desire to try for a joint process this year.  If the IGC nomcom (which, as you say, has the least flexible procedures) is able to incorporate the other groups' nominations, that would be one way of doing it.  If not, then another way would be forwarding one message to UNOG with several different slates of candidates, along with explanations of who chose them and what procedures they used to do so.

This is a way of testing the waters for the kind of unified civil society nomination process that we will need soon for purposes such as the Brazil summit... oops, conference.

So we are trying this and will see how it goes.  In terms of timing, we would have to go back to the main list with the nominee/s for approval this week, as that is the deadline by which the IGC nomcom will be accepting nominations.  So we are seeking any further nominations to steering at lists.bestbits.net or this list by say 20 November.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131117/3abcf7b8/attachment.htm>

From anne at webfoundation.org  Sun Nov 17 08:59:29 2013
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:59:29 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdv=9FKU0w5GNi42QHRxYcd+V8QDQS8ag+NN2KWzm32Kw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeVpBCPZkPH_WH+vgVcCKe04UU0NFPD1ac00y8d8e15_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAApcLc+Q=+6yAkxJToQL225kWi+UTOdp0JGhwM-AJ+P3_tdOiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-FJAdv=9FKU0w5GNi42QHRxYcd+V8QDQS8ag+NN2KWzm32Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbFQTDk9cfxjWvWiGArHLiO=M_1G2A-dAx8YKg2MiVECaA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Carolina. Google Translate does a real hatchet job on this
interview, and I'm struggling and failing to understand CA's remarks on the
data localisation amendment. If anyone who reads Portuguese better than me,
or who can decipher Google-ese better than me, could post a brief summary
(even just a few lines), I'd be very grateful!
many thanks
Anne


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding Eduardo's question, I suggest you take a look (with help of
> Google translate :-) ) at this very clarifying interview CA has given
> recently:
>
> http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/112
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot Carolina. This is extremely helpful to understand the
>> domestic process in Brazil.
>>
>> I have a question to you and my fellow brazilian colleagues. You said in
>> your email that the new version received great support from the Brazilian
>> civil society. Does this support include the support of the new art. 11, 12
>> and 13?
>>
>> I would like to receive the reactions/comments from other people in the
>> network. Maybe I am missing something but those articles includes
>> provisions that form me, first, are not very realistic from an
>> implementation perspective, and second, if this idea is supported in
>> Brazil, I don´t know how we will oppose the same idea for other countries
>> that could use the provisions to go against local civil society groups.
>>
>> I copied below the articles mentioned above:
>>
>>   Art. 11. Any process of collection, storage, custody and treatment of
>> records, personal data or communications by connection providers and
>> Internet applications providers, in which at least one of these acts occurs
>> in the national territory, shall respect Brazilian law, the rights to
>> Privacy, and the confidentiality of personal data, of private
>> communications and records.
>>
>> § 1 The provisions aforementioned apply to data collected in the national
>> territory and the content of communications, in which at least one of the
>> terminals is located in Brazil.
>>
>> § 2 The provisions aforementioned apply even if the activities are
>> carried out by legal entity located abroad, provided that at least one
>> member of the same economic group owns property/is established in Brazil.
>>
>> § 3 The connection providers and Internet applications provider shall
>> provide, in the form of regulations, information that allow the
>> verification regarding compliance with Brazilian legislation regarding the
>> collection, custody, storage and processing of data, as well as how the
>> provider respects the privacy and secrecy of communications.
>>
>> § 4 Decree shall regulate the procedure for finding violations of the
>> provisions of this article.
>>
>> Article 12. The Executive Branch, through Decree, may force connection
>> providers and Internet applications providers provided for in art. 11, who
>> exercise their activities in an organized, professional and economic way,
>> to install or use structures for storage, management and dissemination of
>> data in the country, considering the size of the providers, its sales in
>> Brazil and breadth of the service offering to the Brazilian public.
>>
>> Article 13. Without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative
>> penalties, violations of the rules laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 12
>> shall be subject, as appropriate, the following sanctions, applied
>> individually or cumulatively:
>>
>> I - warning, indicating the deadline for corrective action;
>>
>> II - a fine of up to ten percent of the gross revenues of the economic
>> group in Brazil in its last financial year, excluding taxes;
>>
>> III - Temporary suspension of activities involving the acts specified in
>> Clauses 11 and 12, or
>>
>> IV - the prohibition of the exercise of activities that involve the acts
>> referred to in Articles 11 and 12.
>>
>> Single paragraph. In the case of a foreign company, its subsidiary,
>> branch, office or establishment in the country will be jointly and
>> severally liable for payment of the penalties aforementioned.
>>   I look forward to hearing from you.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> e
>>
>>
>>
>> Eduardo
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Carolina Rossini <
>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> *** sorry for cross-posting ***
>>>
>>> during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version
>>> of  the Marco Civil made public last week.
>>>
>>> This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society
>>> and has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators.
>>>
>>> Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text,
>>> the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its
>>> translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however,
>>> they do not mirror what was deleted.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> C
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>> Open Technology Institute
>>> *New America Foundation*
>>> //
>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>> + 1 6176979389
>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>> skype: carolrossini
>>> @carolinarossini
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Anne Jellema
Chief Executive Officer
Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
Skype anne.jellema
@afjellema

World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131117/938fdfe0/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov 17 10:50:51 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:20:51 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
In-Reply-To: <D36FECBE-5A12-4B48-A40A-07ADF3D16E9A@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> <D36FECBE-5A12-4B48-A40A-07ADF3D16E9A@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <5288E5DB.10903@itforchange.net>

Adam

"On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good." (Adam)

I find the tone and tenor of your email very objectionable. It makes 
direct ad hominem characterisations. I have asked for IGC cocos opinion 
on it, and after hearing from them will exercise my options...

Meanwhile, below is my response to the substantive issues you raise. 
(Hopefully, as I am answering all the questions aimed at me, others 
would agree to do so too about issues that I will presently raise about 
the WGEC meeting. This is an important political discussion.)

On Wednesday 13 November 2013 07:28 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Thanks Joy.
>
> Disappointing to see Parminder partnering with Iran and Saudi Arabia (what a trio...) "called for an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism".
The quoted language is of course only a rough generalisation by those 
who made the report on the APC blog bec, for one, I certainly did not 
use those terms together anywhere but well.... The real issue here is 
that the APC blog report says that India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and myself 
made the above demand (as said, I never actually used the centralised, 
inter-gov term) while the fact is that it was Brazil that first 
presented this mime and repeated it the most number of times through the 
three days. (The transcripts of the three days are available on 
CSTD-WGEC website). The glaring omission of the name of Brazil who was 
the number one proponent of this 'approach' is therefore hopefully 
unintended, and I expect the authors of the report to amend their blog 
accordingly.

What is even more interesting is that Adam in his report of the APC blog 
further drops even India from the list, which country rep more closely 
and clearly reflected Brazilian presentation of the mentioned "approach" 
than did Saudi Arabia and Iran. Adam seemed to be in a tearing hurry to 
make up his 'what a trio' story :).

Now, if we indeed have to say the truth which is that Brazil, India, 
Saudi Arabia and Iran pushed for the mentioned 'approach', one easy way 
to say is that *all the developing country members* of the WGEC who 
spoke anything/ much substantial pushed for the mentioned 'approach' . 
Now that sounds quite different from the 'what a trio' story, doesnt it.

> Parminder, I hope when you present these ill conceived notions you inform the WG that they are very much your own positions and not widely supported by civil society.  They get no support when you mention on the IGC or bestbits lists.

Firstly, as you know, the position IT for Change presented has the 
express support of scores of global NGOs and many many more individuals, 
and this wide  support has been presented to the WGEC and to others... 
You can choose to stay oblivious of it. In the circumstances, I find 
repeated references to 'one civil society organisation' quite amusing.

Even on IGC and BestBits list, there are many supporters of this view. 
The position that BestBits presented to the WGEC agreed on two elements 
of the presented idea of "an holistic approach to internet governance as 
a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be 
materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism" - 
the 'holistic' part and corresponding need for a centralised 
treatment.... beyond that, the BB statement presented two options - one 
of which was an inter-gov platform with deep stakeholder consultations 
at all levels, and another which seems to want to include all 
stakeholders equally in actual process of decision making for 'public 
policy making'.... (I will come back to this latter position in my next 
email).

In my next two emails, I will first present what in  my view was really 
the biggest issue at the WGEC meeting, about which I would want views of 
both WGEC members and others. In a separate email then I will respond to 
the last issue of - whether I sought a closed list for what has been 
called as 'the correspondence group', from which allegation some cheap 
political capital is being sought to be made.

parminder

>
> The live transcription was had to follow --in all uppercase letters rolling down the screen-- but it seems you tried to limit participation in the Correspondence Group mentioned in the summary Joy provided (to provide "analysis of issues/existing mechanisms/on-going activities") while the rest of civil society and others successfully kept it open to all.  Is that right, you argued for a closed group?
>
> On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:39 AM, joy wrote:
>
>> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general
>> note on the summary of the meeting:http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Joy Liddicoat
>>
>> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>> Dear people,
>>>
>>> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
>>> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
>>> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
>>> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
>>> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
>>>
>>> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
>>> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
>>> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
>>> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
>>> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
>>>
>>> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
>>> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
>>> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
>>> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
>>> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
>>> requires periodic revisions.
>>>
>>> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
>>> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
>>>
>>> ------
>>> 72.	We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
>>> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
>>> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>>> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
>>>
>>> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
>>> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
>>> stability and development of the Internet.
>>>
>>> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
>>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
>>> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
>>>
>>> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
>>> institutions on matters under their purview.
>>>
>>> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
>>> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
>>> and technical communities.
>>>
>>> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
>>> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
>>>
>>> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
>>> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
>>> developing countries.
>>>
>>> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
>>> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.
>>>
>>> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
>>> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
>>>
>>> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
>>> principles in Internet governance processes.
>>>
>>> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
>>>
>>> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
>>> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
>>>
>>> l) Publish its proceedings.
>>> ------
>>>
>>> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
>>> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
>>> forum, not merely a sequence of events.
>>>
>>> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
>>> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
>>> have been basically ignored by the UN.
>>>
>>> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
>>> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
>>> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
>>> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
>>> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
>>> expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
>>>
>>> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
>>> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
>>> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
>>>
>>> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
>>> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>>> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
>>> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
>>> revealed some worrying weaknesses .
>>>
>>> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
>>> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
>>> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
>>> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
>>> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
>>> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
>>> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
>>> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
>>> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
>>> attached in PDF]
>>>
>>> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
>>> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
>>> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
>>> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
>>> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
>>> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
>>> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
>>> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
>>> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
>>> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
>>> and the WSIS process is inevitable .
>>>
>>> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
>>> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
>>> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
>>> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
>>> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
>>>
>>> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
>>> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
>>> below.
>>>
>>> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
>>> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
>>> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
>>> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
>>> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
>>> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
>>> suggestions:
>>>
>>> ------
>>> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
>>> Observers
>>>
>>> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
>>> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
>>> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
>>> responsibilities of all participants;
>>>
>>> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
>>> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
>>> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
>>> Declaration of Principles;
>>>
>>> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
>>> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
>>>
>>> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
>>> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
>>>
>>> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
>>> Enhanced Cooperation;
>>>
>>> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
>>> as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
>>> in a top down manner;
>>>
>>> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
>>> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
>>> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
>>>
>>> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
>>> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
>>>
>>> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
>>> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
>>> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
>>> larger IGF community;
>>>
>>> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
>>> IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
>>> Internet governance and management organizations;
>>>
>>> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
>>> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
>>> within their mandates;
>>>
>>> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
>>> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
>>> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
>>> footing;
>>>
>>> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
>>> participate in the IGF.
>>>
>>> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
>>> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
>>> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
>>> ------
>>>
>>> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
>>> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
>>> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
>>> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
>>> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
>>> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
>>>
>>> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
>>> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
>>>
>>> ------
>>> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
>>> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
>>> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
>>> working methods such as remote participation.
>>>
>>> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
>>> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
>>> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
>>>
>>> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
>>> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
>>> affordable access for all stakeholders.
>>>
>>> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
>>> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
>>> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
>>> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
>>> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
>>> ------
>>>
>>> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
>>> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
>>>
>>> fraternal regards
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131117/4ef0b333/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sun Nov 17 14:26:08 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:26:08 -0300
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian
 Marco Civil Bill
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbFQTDk9cfxjWvWiGArHLiO=M_1G2A-dAx8YKg2MiVECaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeVpBCPZkPH_WH+vgVcCKe04UU0NFPD1ac00y8d8e15_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLc+Q=+6yAkxJToQL225kWi+UTOdp0JGhwM-AJ+P3_tdOiw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdv=9FKU0w5GNi42QHRxYcd+V8QDQS8ag+NN2KWzm32Kw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwCmbFQTDk9cfxjWvWiGArHLiO=M_1G2A-dAx8YKg2MiVECaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B828E833-03CD-4F7B-9A18-0E7CAE8DA122@cafonso.ca>

Dear Anne, I am planning to do the translation myself, but right now I am in the Icann meeting with very little time for this. The original interview is actually larger, so my attempt will be to convert it to a full article.

In the meantime, could you send me phrase/paragraph you had trouble with?

frt rgds

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 17/11/2013, at 10:59, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Carolina. Google Translate does a real hatchet job on this interview, and I'm struggling and failing to understand CA's remarks on the data localisation amendment. If anyone who reads Portuguese better than me, or who can decipher Google-ese better than me, could post a brief summary (even just a few lines), I'd be very grateful!
> many thanks
> Anne
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Regarding Eduardo's question, I suggest you take a look (with help of Google translate :-) ) at this very clarifying interview CA has given recently:
>> 
>> http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/112
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu> wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot Carolina. This is extremely helpful to understand the domestic process in Brazil. 
>>> 
>>> I have a question to you and my fellow brazilian colleagues. You said in your email that the new version received great support from the Brazilian civil society. Does this support include the support of the new art. 11, 12 and 13?
>>> 
>>> I would like to receive the reactions/comments from other people in the network. Maybe I am missing something but those articles includes provisions that form me, first, are not very realistic from an implementation perspective, and second, if this idea is supported in Brazil, I don´t know how we will oppose the same idea for other countries that could use the provisions to go against local civil society groups.
>>> 
>>> I copied below the articles mentioned above:
>>> 
>>> Art. 11. Any process of collection, storage, custody and treatment of records, personal data or communications by connection providers and Internet applications providers, in which at least one of these acts occurs in the national territory, shall respect Brazilian law, the rights to Privacy, and the confidentiality of personal data, of private communications and records.
>>> 
>>> § 1 The provisions aforementioned apply to data collected in the national territory and the content of communications, in which at least one of the terminals is located in Brazil.
>>> 
>>> § 2 The provisions aforementioned apply even if the activities are carried out by legal entity located abroad, provided that at least one member of the same economic group owns property/is established in Brazil.
>>> 
>>> § 3 The connection providers and Internet applications provider shall provide, in the form of regulations, information that allow the verification regarding compliance with Brazilian legislation regarding the collection, custody, storage and processing of data, as well as how the provider respects the privacy and secrecy of communications.
>>> 
>>> § 4 Decree shall regulate the procedure for finding violations of the provisions of this article.
>>> 
>>> Article 12. The Executive Branch, through Decree, may force connection providers and Internet applications providers provided for in art. 11, who exercise their activities in an organized, professional and economic way, to install or use structures for storage, management and dissemination of data in the country, considering the size of the providers, its sales in Brazil and breadth of the service offering to the Brazilian public.
>>> 
>>> Article 13. Without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative penalties, violations of the rules laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 12 shall be subject, as appropriate, the following sanctions, applied individually or cumulatively:
>>> 
>>> I - warning, indicating the deadline for corrective action;
>>> 
>>> II - a fine of up to ten percent of the gross revenues of the economic group in Brazil in its last financial year, excluding taxes;
>>> 
>>> III - Temporary suspension of activities involving the acts specified in Clauses 11 and 12, or
>>> 
>>> IV - the prohibition of the exercise of activities that involve the acts referred to in Articles 11 and 12.
>>> 
>>> Single paragraph. In the case of a foreign company, its subsidiary, branch, office or establishment in the country will be jointly and severally liable for payment of the penalties aforementioned. 
>>> 
>>> I look forward to hearing from you.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> e
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Eduardo
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dear all, 
>>>> 
>>>> *** sorry for cross-posting ***
>>>> 
>>>> during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of  the Marco Civil made public last week. 
>>>> 
>>>> This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators. 
>>>> 
>>>> Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text, the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however, they do not mirror what was deleted. 
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> C
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Carolina Rossini 
>>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
>>>> Open Technology Institute
>>>> New America Foundation
>>>> //
>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>> + 1 6176979389
>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Carolina Rossini 
>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
>> Open Technology Institute
>> New America Foundation
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anne Jellema
> Chief Executive Officer
> Cape Town, RSA
> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652 
> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 
> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
> Skype anne.jellema
> @afjellema  
>  
> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131117/3a3a8004/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun Nov 17 14:39:16 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 04:39:16 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC
In-Reply-To: <5288E5DB.10903@itforchange.net>
References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> <D36FECBE-5A12-4B48-A40A-07ADF3D16E9A@glocom.ac.jp> <5288E5DB.10903@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <04D86BD4-9B24-41B3-8BAC-78BCA7C45E8D@glocom.ac.jp>

Parminder

On Nov 18, 2013, at 12:50 AM, parminder wrote:

> Adam
> 
> "On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good." (Adam)
> I find the tone and tenor of your email very objectionable. It makes direct ad hominem characterisations. I have asked for IGC cocos opinion on it, and after hearing from them will exercise my options...
> 

"On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness"  fact.

"then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control"  fact (as anyone who followed the recent WGEC and can read the transcripts can confirm)

"Not good."  fact.

I am sorry you seem to feel such a victim (and there you were in Bali abusing people all over the place).  I am sure Norbert and Sala will have an opinion.  Anyone else who followed the recent CSTD WG discussions wish to chip in?

Thanks,

Adam




> Meanwhile, below is my response to the substantive issues you raise. (Hopefully, as I am answering all the questions aimed at me, others would agree to do so too about issues that I will presently raise about the WGEC meeting. This is an important political discussion.)
> 
> On Wednesday 13 November 2013 07:28 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> Thanks Joy.
>> 
>> Disappointing to see Parminder partnering with Iran and Saudi Arabia (what a trio...) "called for an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism".  
>> 
> The quoted language is of course only a rough generalisation by those who made the report on the APC blog bec, for one, I certainly did not use those terms together anywhere but well.... The real issue here is that the APC blog report says that India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and myself made the above demand (as said, I never actually used the centralised, inter-gov term) while the fact is that it was Brazil that first presented this mime and repeated it the most number of times through the three days. (The transcripts of the three days are available on CSTD-WGEC website). The glaring omission of the name of Brazil who was the number one proponent of this 'approach' is therefore hopefully unintended, and I expect the authors of the report to amend their blog accordingly. 
> 
> What is even more interesting is that Adam in his report of the APC blog further drops even India from the list, which country rep more closely and clearly reflected Brazilian presentation of the mentioned "approach" than did Saudi Arabia and Iran. Adam seemed to be in a tearing hurry to make up his 'what a trio' story :). 
> 
> Now, if we indeed have to say the truth which is that Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia and Iran pushed for the mentioned 'approach', one easy way to say is that *all the developing country members* of the WGEC who spoke anything/ much substantial pushed for the mentioned 'approach' . Now that sounds quite different from the 'what a trio' story, doesnt it. 
> 
>> Parminder, I hope when you present these ill conceived notions you inform the WG that they are very much your own positions and not widely supported by civil society.  They get no support when you mention on the IGC or bestbits lists.
> 
> Firstly, as you know, the position IT for Change presented has the express support of scores of global NGOs and many many more individuals, and this wide  support has been presented to the WGEC and to others... You can choose to stay oblivious of it. In the circumstances, I find repeated references to 'one civil society organisation' quite amusing.
> 
> Even on IGC and BestBits list, there are many supporters of this view. The position that BestBits presented to the WGEC agreed on two elements of the presented idea of "an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism" - the 'holistic' part and corresponding need for a centralised treatment.... beyond that, the BB statement presented two options - one of which was an inter-gov platform with deep stakeholder consultations at all levels, and another which seems to want to include all stakeholders equally in actual process of decision making for 'public policy making'.... (I will come back to this latter position in my next email). 
> 
> In my next two emails, I will first present what in  my view was really the biggest issue at the WGEC meeting, about which I would want views of both WGEC members and others. In a separate email then I will respond to the last issue of - whether I sought a closed list for what has been called as 'the correspondence group', from which allegation some cheap political capital is being sought to be made.
> 
> parminder 
> 
>> 
>> The live transcription was had to follow --in all uppercase letters rolling down the screen-- but it seems you tried to limit participation in the Correspondence Group mentioned in the summary Joy provided (to provide "analysis of issues/existing mechanisms/on-going activities") while the rest of civil society and others successfully kept it open to all.  Is that right, you argued for a closed group?  
>> 
>> On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good.
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:39 AM, joy wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general
>>> note on the summary of the meeting: 
>>> http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> regards
>>> 
>>> Joy Liddicoat
>>> 
>>> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear people,
>>>> 
>>>> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
>>>> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
>>>> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
>>>> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
>>>> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
>>>> 
>>>> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
>>>> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
>>>> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
>>>> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
>>>> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
>>>> 
>>>> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
>>>> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
>>>> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
>>>> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
>>>> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
>>>> requires periodic revisions.
>>>> 
>>>> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
>>>> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
>>>> 
>>>> ------
>>>> 72.	We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
>>>> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
>>>> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>>>> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
>>>> 
>>>> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
>>>> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
>>>> stability and development of the Internet.
>>>> 
>>>> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
>>>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
>>>> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
>>>> 
>>>> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
>>>> institutions on matters under their purview.
>>>> 
>>>> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
>>>> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
>>>> and technical communities.
>>>> 
>>>> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
>>>> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
>>>> 
>>>> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
>>>> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
>>>> developing countries.
>>>> 
>>>> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
>>>> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.
>>>> 
>>>> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
>>>> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
>>>> 
>>>> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
>>>> principles in Internet governance processes.
>>>> 
>>>> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
>>>> 
>>>> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
>>>> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
>>>> 
>>>> l) Publish its proceedings.
>>>> ------
>>>> 
>>>> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
>>>> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
>>>> forum, not merely a sequence of events.
>>>> 
>>>> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
>>>> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
>>>> have been basically ignored by the UN.
>>>> 
>>>> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
>>>> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
>>>> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
>>>> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
>>>> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
>>>> expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
>>>> 
>>>> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
>>>> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
>>>> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
>>>> 
>>>> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
>>>> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>>>> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
>>>> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
>>>> revealed some worrying weaknesses .
>>>> 
>>>> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
>>>> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
>>>> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
>>>> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
>>>> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
>>>> countries.
>>>> 
>>>> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
>>>> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
>>>> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
>>>> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
>>>> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
>>>> attached in PDF]
>>>> 
>>>> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
>>>> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
>>>> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
>>>> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
>>>> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
>>>> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
>>>> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
>>>> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
>>>> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
>>>> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
>>>> and the WSIS process is inevitable .
>>>> 
>>>> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
>>>> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
>>>> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
>>>> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
>>>> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
>>>> 
>>>> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
>>>> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
>>>> below.
>>>> 
>>>> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
>>>> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
>>>> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
>>>> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
>>>> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
>>>> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
>>>> suggestions:
>>>> 
>>>> ------
>>>> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
>>>> Observers
>>>> 
>>>> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
>>>> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
>>>> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
>>>> responsibilities of all participants;
>>>> 
>>>> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
>>>> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
>>>> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
>>>> Declaration of Principles;
>>>> 
>>>> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
>>>> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
>>>> 
>>>> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
>>>> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
>>>> 
>>>> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
>>>> Enhanced Cooperation;
>>>> 
>>>> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
>>>> as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
>>>> in a top down manner;
>>>> 
>>>> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
>>>> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
>>>> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
>>>> 
>>>> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
>>>> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
>>>> 
>>>> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
>>>> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
>>>> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
>>>> larger IGF community;
>>>> 
>>>> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
>>>> IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
>>>> Internet governance and management organizations;
>>>> 
>>>> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
>>>> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
>>>> within their mandates;
>>>> 
>>>> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
>>>> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
>>>> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
>>>> footing;
>>>> 
>>>> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
>>>> participate in the IGF.
>>>> 
>>>> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
>>>> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
>>>> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
>>>> ------
>>>> 
>>>> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
>>>> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
>>>> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
>>>> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
>>>> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
>>>> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
>>>> 
>>>> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
>>>> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
>>>> 
>>>> ------
>>>> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
>>>> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
>>>> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
>>>> working methods such as remote participation.
>>>> 
>>>> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
>>>> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
>>>> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
>>>> 
>>>> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
>>>> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
>>>> affordable access for all stakeholders.
>>>> 
>>>> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
>>>> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
>>>> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
>>>> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
>>>> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
>>>> ------
>>>> 
>>>> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
>>>> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
>>>> 
>>>> fraternal regards
>>>> 
>>>> --c.a.
>>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu  Fri Nov  1 08:39:51 2013
From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:39:51 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] My article this week: Intermediary Liability Doctrine:
 Same Wine in New Bottle?
Message-ID: <CAApcLcLB9k-ynbHXppqQHLdFAsivWOG0zbrSh1VqDb72b_f--w@mail.gmail.com>

*Apologize for cross posting*
Dear friends and colleagues,

I just published in MLRC <http://www.medialaw.org/> MediaLawLetter a short
article that might be in your interest titled:

*Argentina Supreme Court Protects Online Reposting Intermediary Liability
Doctrine: Same Wine in New
Bottle?<http://ebertoni.blogspot.com.ar/2013/10/argentina-supreme-court-protects-online.html>
*

The piece is copied below.

Best,

Eduardo Bertoni


*Argentina Supreme Court Protects Online Reposting Intermediary Liability
Doctrine: Same Wine in New Bottle?*

originally published at MLRC <http://www.medialaw.org/> MediaLawLetter,
October 2013.

Like other Latin American countries, Argentina does not have specific laws
governing liability for online intermediaries for third party posted
content. The absence of specific laws on intermediary liability has become
particularly problematic in defamation and invasion of privacy cases, with
judges applying laws passed in an era when the Internet was not even
imagined. In some cases, judges have ordered intermediaries to pay damages
for third party content, but other cases have held the opposite.

A recent decision from the Argentina Supreme Court may provide some help.
The Court applied an old doctrine to decide that an intermediary should not
be liable. Sujarchuk Ariel Bernardo c/Warley Jorge Alberto s/daños y
perjuicios” –SC, S.755, L.XLVI.

Background

The facts of the case are simple. The defendant, Mr. Warley, posted on his
blog an article written by another person. The article, according to the
plaintiff Mr. Sujarchuk harmed his reputation and he claimed for damages
against Mr. Warley, who, besides posting the article, added as a title to
the post containing the word “sinister” which was not in the original
article.

Plaintiff won the case at the First Instance Judge and also at the Court of
Appeal. However, the Argentinean Supreme Court reversed the decision,
applying the doctrine known as “Campillay” (Fallos 308:789). The name of
the doctrine came from a case decided in the 1980s, and the holding
relevant for the “Sujarchuk” case is: a journalist or a publisher is not
liable for the content published if he or she mentioned clearly the source
from where the content is taken and also he or she has not contributed
substantially to the content that was published.

The Supreme Court followed the arguments of the Attorney General when she
gave her opinion in the case. After highlighting the importance of freedom
of expression as a basic human right and its importance for democracy, the
Attorney General cited the Campillay doctrine and noted that in the instant
case the content of the article at issue was not written by the defendant
but only posted to his blog.

Regarding the title created by the defendant, the Attorney General
considered that this didn’t change substantially what the article itself
said, so it did not defeat the Campillay doctrine: defendant merely
reproduced content written by a third party and identified the source.

The Sujarchuk case could have a great impact in a decision pending before
the Supreme Court where the intermediaries are not bloggers but important
search engines (Google and Yahoo). Though the case “Da Cunha Virginia
c/Yahoo de Argentina SRL y Otro s/ daños y perjuicios” –S.C., D.544,
L.XLVI.- is not decided yet, the Attorney General in her opinion of the
case noted that the “Campillay” doctrine is applicable in cases where the
search engines only indicate the place where information is available on
the Internet.

As I said at the beginning, in Argentina we don´t have legislation like
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or the DMCA. However, there
is strong advocacy in Argentina to clarify and to modernize the law in the
country. However, in the meantime, an old doctrine may provide a safe
harbor for intermediaries. In other words, some Judges understood that some
old wine may fit in a new bottle.
Eduardo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/395a9dae/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Sun Nov 17 19:43:08 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:43:08 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet
 Governance
Message-ID: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org>

A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - 

"The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance challenges."

<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html>

FYI,
/John



From jcurran at istaff.org  Sun Nov 17 20:15:07 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:15:07 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address
 Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <14268b239e0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org> <14268b239e0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CE12E115-51C5-40C7-B197-9CED51E86C59@istaff.org>

On Nov 17, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> Nice list I must say. And where exactly will the recommendations from this panel feed into?

It appears to be intended as an input into the Brazil meeting; I have
heard that there will be an call for proposals for input to that meeting
(open to all & due sometime early next year) and this was a consideration
in the timing of organizing the high-level panel.

(I am still trying to get hard confirmation of these details to share here 
and on the 1net site.)

FYI,
/John




From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Nov 17 21:06:55 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:06:55 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address
 Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org>

On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote:
> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - 
>
> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance challenges."
>
> <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html>

So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil
society representatives for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global
Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel on Internet
evolution.  Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel
would be a decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently
this was just more bluff.

The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf
do not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution. 
And meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes
such as in the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the
digital age.  The technical community, supported by its hundreds of
millions of dollars in revenue, is eating broader civil society alive.

We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over
questions about whether to send the letter nominating our
representatives to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list
should be open or closed.  It is absolutely imperative now that we put
internal process issues on hold, and focus on urgent substantive issues.

Will post something more practical about all this to the new (though now
already mis-named) "summit" list.


-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/a2b1169b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/a2b1169b/attachment.sig>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Nov 17 21:51:52 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:51:52 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to
  Address Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org>
 <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.75.1642081814.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/7dbb15eb/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Nov 18 00:22:34 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:22:34 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to
 Address Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org> <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Not one person from civil society who has been active in IGF since the
WSIS process.

Frankly, I am not at all surprised, but it is still extremely
disappointing and just hope this does not signal what we can expect from
the Brazil meeting.

Moreover, developing country representation is extremely poor.

Agree with Jeremy that we should act.

Anriette



On 18/11/2013 04:06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote:
>> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues
surrounding global Internet cooperation -
>>
>> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for
public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet
cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for
future Internet governance challenges."
>>
>>
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html>
>
> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil
society representatives for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global
Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel on Internet
evolution.  Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel
would be a decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently
this was just more bluff.
>
> The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our
behalf do not include the most expert names on Internet governance
evolution.  And meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other
processes such as in the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy
in the digital age.  The technical community, supported by its hundreds
of millions of dollars in revenue, is eating broader civil society alive.
>
> We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over
questions about whether to send the letter nominating our
representatives to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list
should be open or closed.  It is absolutely imperative now that we put
internal process issues on hold, and focus on urgent substantive issues.
>
> Will post something more practical about all this to the new (though
now already mis-named) "summit" list.
>
>
> --
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

- -- 
- ------------------------------------------------------
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSiaQZAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewvJsH/2UN20/QDncUSO3Ksuzz7RbU
9AxjK13KM0nxy+jmfJnzMQ1Vg9rpv3N3wN7DiLqkw4+V2PZl0qZ69tgIlpoCO2xG
wgLJ1vau7yADIDNXLGSucmFUw3+qcIW6tHxWAAuCx/6VYrJkyLUpab6E/JDS0u2k
+pQgkHTwbrpQCUCRWHhzRGIs3G17sMZF8rH7UNaKXk6Cw7yyCkm1imRMTPYrS4Fh
Vr1U/i49mEx+cV9ejhbMU/aLY/8VAOBzljt3j5RccwDEF0NmDlLkdPlIfRNSjX+H
8Ye7m3rJgzcc+v4ZnmpGHVPUl7/KVwURNgSV5pMOg5aEi29J4UuDl30Fct5Vz9s=
=ViIp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/f5819855/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Nov 18 00:36:22 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:36:22 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address
 Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxirkpSW75pJSatthGVO-L6sRDQk2pY96eU3uG_WyJiG9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org> <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <CACAaNxirkpSW75pJSatthGVO-L6sRDQk2pY96eU3uG_WyJiG9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87323243-9564-46F3-BC1B-7B08CFCFE819@istaff.org>

On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:40 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> 
>> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society
>> representatives
> 
> Are they "representatives"?

I don't believe that any of them are there in anything other than their 
individual capacity.  I certainly don't consider them a priori to be
representative of my views, but I will welcome their report and hope 
to find it informative in some manner.

Note - there's nothing to prevent another group from forming a "Higher-
Level Panel on the Future of Internet Governance" (or a "Lower-level 
Panel" or "Panel of the True Experts on Internet Governance"), and 
then producing their own report for input to the Brazil meeting.  I
thought that the announcement of this particular panel may be of some
interest to the CS community and hence my email.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimers: My views alone; no panel was consulted in their preparation.




From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Nov 18 01:03:45 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:03:45 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address
 Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <87323243-9564-46F3-BC1B-7B08CFCFE819@istaff.org>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org> <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <CACAaNxirkpSW75pJSatthGVO-L6sRDQk2pY96eU3uG_WyJiG9A@mail.gmail.com> <87323243-9564-46F3-BC1B-7B08CFCFE819@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <AA4BFBC9-9755-46CB-98DA-E624E90FCB69@gmail.com>

Dear All,

Some related links:

http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/11/global-panel-address-future-internet-governance

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131117_high_level_panel_formed_on_the_future_of_internet_governance/

Sala

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:36 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:40 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society
>>> representatives
>> 
>> Are they "representatives"?
> 
> I don't believe that any of them are there in anything other than their 
> individual capacity.  I certainly don't consider them a priori to be
> representative of my views, but I will welcome their report and hope 
> to find it informative in some manner.
> 
> Note - there's nothing to prevent another group from forming a "Higher-
> Level Panel on the Future of Internet Governance" (or a "Lower-level 
> Panel" or "Panel of the True Experts on Internet Governance"), and 
> then producing their own report for input to the Brazil meeting.  I
> thought that the announcement of this particular panel may be of some
> interest to the CS community and hence my email.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> Disclaimers: My views alone; no panel was consulted in their preparation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Nov 18 00:32:42 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:32:42 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to
 Address Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org>
	<5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org>
	<5289A41A.7030801@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAWUiw-_ACqGFDAgWCS2yuXvKUbU=eXx6=nWv5URL6uag@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Not one person from civil society who has been active in IGF since the
> WSIS process.
>
> Frankly, I am not at all surprised, but it is still extremely
> disappointing and just hope this does not signal what we can expect from
> the Brazil meeting.
>
> Moreover, developing country representation is extremely poor.
>
> Agree with Jeremy that we should act.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> Good Morning,
>
> Apologies for the delayed response, it has been an eventful day and am
> only just getting a chance to respond now (2:13am). I would like to clarify
> that I am equally surprised (shocked) with the Press Release and the
> discussions that have ensued, particularly the perception that it creates
> contrary to a bottom up process of organising itself. Nevertheless, I will
> add that *it is more clearly than ever *before that global civil society
> needs to be coordinated in its engagement in the issues.
>
> The dangers are that there are groups that can feel marginalised but I
> would offer that we do not let the press release nor the panel affect our
> judgment in terms of how we engage because we know that the absence of
> global voices means the lack of legitimacy and possibly good faith.
> However, having said this, it would seem apparent that there is room for
> people to come to the table but we really should come to the table as
> equals and not because someone else is driving the agenda.
>
> I suggest that we do not get distracted by the Panel and let them develop
> their paper but we as civil society need to consolidate and consult our
> respective constituencies and prepare the relevant papers for submissions
> before the deadline. ICANN has no legitimacy to select civil society
> representatives nor any of the I * organisations. In the meeting in Bali,
> there was no representation by the I* that they would select the civil
> society. On the contrary, I recall that civil society was told that it
> would nominate its own people to the steering committee if there ever was
> one. There are many issues I would like clarified starting with the
> following:
>
> 1)Whether the High Level Panel is proposing to be the Steering Committee?
> If there are other questions people feel should be put to the High Level
> Panel, I am all ears.
>


>
> For global civil society, we should be calm and prepare our background
> papers and submissions either in collaboration with the Panel or
> independent of the Panel. The very fact that there are things happening
> without knowing about it adds more legitimacy as to why we should have
> liaisons in different circles so as to provide feedback into the community.
> In the meantime be good to have your thoughts on how we should proceed-
>

Sala

>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/9dd0c98c/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Mon Nov 18 03:22:08 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:52:08 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I
wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to
the WGEC (see below this message and here:
http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/)

Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal
seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and
Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about
his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However,
during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government
again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be
established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.

Comments most welcome.

Best,
Anja

 Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the
governance of the Internet?  by Anja
Kovacs<http://internetdemocracy.in/author/anja/>

*Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give
the strong impression that this is indeed the case. *

In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
(WGEC)<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>,
which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government
recommended the following:

The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for
formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed
body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and
international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective
roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also
develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated
with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.

Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the
field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s
earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies
within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived.

Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is
problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse
governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose
dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders.
Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only
be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only
be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these
definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are
outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s
WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of
the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its
proposal.

Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came
from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society
representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically
different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet
governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who
believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way
forward.

Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there
might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder
model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion
that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in
the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments
would take over as negotiating treaties is their job.

However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently
and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder
model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities,
is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in
contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy
process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement
only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other
stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also
leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the
vagaries of global geopolitics.

The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for
developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues
associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet
resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the
coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies
overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their
flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that
principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or
effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders
already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be
said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.

The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to
fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis
Agenda.

India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that
would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related
public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a
Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government
precisely for such purposes in August of this year.

For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise -
even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information
Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as
17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet
policy making, and his own commitment to this model.



-- 
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/20131118/dc54e03b/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Nov 18 05:02:38 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:02:38 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address
 Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <AA4BFBC9-9755-46CB-98DA-E624E90FCB69@gmail.com>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org>
	<5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org>
	<CACAaNxirkpSW75pJSatthGVO-L6sRDQk2pY96eU3uG_WyJiG9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<87323243-9564-46F3-BC1B-7B08CFCFE819@istaff.org>
	<AA4BFBC9-9755-46CB-98DA-E624E90FCB69@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-MCnOnTb7cvticwf_NOsg0Mh7QJ9WnOKeHb+0G2aYSgQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to J. Curran latest post here.

ICANN has no legitimacy to choose CS members ("representatives") to a group
they have decided to form? I don't get that. ICANN includes CS members,
doesn't it? What else is the ALAC crowd if not CS? And we've seen
non-commercial stakeholder group members making it from the GNSO council to
the Board, do they cease then being CS? I think we need to stop that kind
of complaining! What makes us more legitimately CS than others? Just
because we talk IG all days and all day long? It's like we are now assuming
that CS means professional CS, those making their living in or with CS
organizations, whereas the peasant who is not aware of your existence is
just as CS as you, just like any other citizen who may be aware of it but
doesn't engage with you or in this circle. Now, ICANN perfectly has the
right to bypass IGC+BB and choose CS from wherever to be part of a group
they initiate, whether from inside its community or from outside of it
(including the peasant, if they so desire.)

So please stop thinking that IGC and BB are the only path to "legitimate"
and "global" CS representation (or rather, inclusion) when it comes to
Internet policy. ICANN decided to form the strategic panels, we didn't.
They had their goals when they made that decision. So if this "high-level"
group just announced now stands in for the 5th panels planned, why should
we be surprised they decide unilaterally (after calling for an unrestricted
show of interest to be a member, mind you) on the membership, as has been
pointed out? If we had been producing some substantive outputs about
evolving IG etc., then someone would be paying attention and it would have
been understandably troubling for us to see that none of our effort is
being taking into account. ICANN or any other structure which has the
autonomy to act could include individuals who happen to be in these groups
(IGC and BB) but I submit that would be because those individuals may have
done some remarkable and relevant job somewhere (working groups, task
forces, etc.), certainly not just because of their membership here. CS
members broadly speaking are not that scarce to find outside here, you
know, and we don't represent as much as we think we do.

As a reminder, following is what I wrote in connection to this more than a
month ago in our discussion following the announcement of the "summit" then.

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
Anja has a point... and so does Parminder. We wouldn't want this initiative
to set in as one of two leaders of two camps, with CS being only reactive
(as often) after the details of the initiative are defined, or even after
that narrative about the initiative is widely publicized. I have to say I'm
a little surprised, for all the energy and time we have spent debating
ourselves and against each others over the last too many months, and too
many other months before that, and again before, etc. we do not have at
this point a compiled list of critical questions, items, issues we think
are priorities that need to be addressed as part of international policy
for the global internet governance.

Ideally, the existence of such list would have helped address the two
perspectives: Put international CS on the map within a couple of days after
the news emerged and yet in a way that is even more substantive than the
initiative itself in its initial form. Imagine that! Maybe those high-level
leaders and their institutions would now be reacting to CS in the process
of moving their agenda forward on this.

And I shall add that exactly was the challenge put before us by the Indian
Minister we met in Baku. To paraphrase, he basically said and asked: You
(CS) know as well as we (Govt.) do that these issues are complex, and there
is no simple, one-sided solution. As the challenges of the internet
continue to manifest themselves, governments will always try to do what
they do best (at least from the standpoint of states), the best way they
know. But in the meantime what are you CS proposing? How can you help us do
what needs to be done without unwanted collateral damages (wrt the rights
of honest people, etc.)? (Or something along those lines.) I know there are
individuals among us who have been doing substantive work, including
research. But as a whole, we CS enjoy chatters. We always seem to want to
have a place at the table before thinking things through. And we put our
small money where our mouth is, that is, in chatters. And our energy in
contentious useless debates.
...

Best,

Mawaki



On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Some related links:
>
>
> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/11/global-panel-address-future-internet-governance
>
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131117_high_level_panel_formed_on_the_future_of_internet_governance/
>
> Sala
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:36 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:40 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil
> society
> >>> representatives
> >>
> >> Are they "representatives"?
> >
> > I don't believe that any of them are there in anything other than their
> > individual capacity.  I certainly don't consider them a priori to be
> > representative of my views, but I will welcome their report and hope
> > to find it informative in some manner.
> >
> > Note - there's nothing to prevent another group from forming a "Higher-
> > Level Panel on the Future of Internet Governance" (or a "Lower-level
> > Panel" or "Panel of the True Experts on Internet Governance"), and
> > then producing their own report for input to the Brazil meeting.  I
> > thought that the announcement of this particular panel may be of some
> > interest to the CS community and hence my email.
> >
> > FYI,
> > /John
> >
> > Disclaimers: My views alone; no panel was consulted in their preparation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/062154ce/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Fri Nov  1 12:45:56 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:45:56 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Notes from Meeting with the Brazilian Delegation at the
 IGF, October 22, 2013
Message-ID: <CALU7RQYmbUppA5tN4gzr6SzNtoiQpNpKxbXqy_3-9jY5jVLNpg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please find below a brief write up from the meeting between the Brazilian
delegation at the IGF and many members of international civil society.
Please excuse the delay in sending these notes out. The meeting was
conducted mostly in Portuguese so it was necessary to compare notes, which
was complicated by travel schedules.

For others who attended the meeting, please feel to add/correct anything
below.

Kind regards,
Deborah

Notes from Meeting with the Brazilian Delegation at the IGF, October 22,
2013


Leading the meeting from the Brazilian delegation: *Paulo Bernardo
Silva *(Minister
of Communications), *Virgilio Almeida* (Secretary for Information
Technology Policy for the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation),
and *Benedicto Fonseca Filho* (Director of the Department of Scientific and
Technological Themes Ministry of External Relations). Other members of the
Brazilian delegation and the CGI.br participated in the meeting as well.

For a list of attendees from civil society please see:
https://pad.riseup.net/p/Brazilian_Del_mtg-_Expression_of_interest

[Note this list represents individuals who signed up to attend the meeting,
not necessarily who was in the room.]

*Proposals from civil society* [as delivered by Marilia Maciel, FGV-CTS]


   1.

   An open the process for consultation prior to the summit
   2.

   Inclusion of civil society during the summit and in the decision-making
   3.

   Inclusion of civil society in the steering committee with
   representatives of its own choosing


*Opening remarks by Minister Paulo Bernardo Silva*

   -

   It was not Brazil’s idea to hold a summit, we were approached by Fadi to
   have the summit and working out ways to hold it.
   -

   We don’t have much time to hold consultations, it’s next year, and it’s
   not to be promoted by the Brazilian government or by ICANN.
   -

   It’s a great idea to have a public consultations but it’s a legitimacy
   problem because Brazil is not running it and ICANN isn’t running it. We
   also don’t know what other countries think
   -

   We could give this task to CGI.br. This is an idea.
   -

   As part of the consultation you [civil society] could give us concrete
   proposals. This is the type of group we want to be speaking with.


*Other points from Brazilian delegation* [primarily Virgilio and
Benedicto]:

   -

   This event is not meant to compete with the IGF. It is a one-time
   meeting for input from all stakeholders with concrete suggestions.
   -

   The intention is to respect all existing processes, the High Level WSIS
   meeting in Sharm el Sheikh, the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation,
   etc. Those are processes Brazil has been involved in and doesn’t want to
   compete with. In particular the Brazil Summit should not be seen as giving
   less importance to the IGF. The outcome from WSIS High Level meeting and
   WGEC will have a very significant impact the summit.
   -

   At this point, the summit has two very clear purposes/themes:
   -

      To follow up on Dilma’s UN speech, which called for an international
      civil framework by working around principles she mentioned.
      -

      Engaging the in the exercise to internationalize ICANN (according to
      the Montevideo statement). Brazil cherishes multistakeholder nature of
      ICANN, but it lacks internationality.
      -

      Other things may come up, but at least those two themes are there.
      -

   ICANN is only a small part of the topics Brazil wants to discuss at the
   summit. The topics covered by ICANN are not related to the motivations that
   brought this summit. It will not  limited to topics related to ICANN. They
   are one of the participants, agenda is much broader than that.
   -

   Brazil thinks it should pursue a different organization of this
   conference, as compared to the Seoul meeting, wants a broad process for
   constructing the agenda. They said they feel they should also focus on
   outcomes from the beginning, and not leave that to the summit itself.
   Consulting on outcomes should also be an inclusive process.
   -

   More information from Brazil will be made available on November 11.


The following people were identified as civil society liaisons with the
Brazilian government for the planning for the summit: Joana Varon (FGV/CTS)
Carolina Rossini (NAF), Laura Tresca (Article 19), and Carlos Afonso
(Nupef)

-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org
rightscon.org

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/7fda0987/attachment.htm>

From pouzin at well.com  Mon Nov 18 07:32:40 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:32:40 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address
 Future of Internet Governance
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYq-ycNtTuoA_juYuQ9h=FgQo2rP3bLuLKJMhtdYk8upKA@mail.gmail.com>

In other words

Temple guardians beat the bushes for a (shrinking) leadership

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html

All the buzzwords are there. They rehash "global", meaning US control.
Boring.

Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/5c78682b/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Nov 18 09:41:06 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:41:06 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to  Address
 Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <155104122.15268.1384783125971.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j27>
References: <CA+EjHYq-ycNtTuoA_juYuQ9h=FgQo2rP3bLuLKJMhtdYk8upKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <155104122.15268.1384783125971.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j27>
Message-ID: <mailman.76.1642081814.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

At 14:58 18/11/2013, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
>Thanks Louis
>Are these "high level panel" figures mentioned in the link the crew 
>of the "Noah's arch" sailing towards its safe future or that od the 
>"raft of the Medusa" struggling desperately for the survival of the 
>US-centric Internet ?
>Anyway, Brazil's initiative give the IGF a new impetus. I'd wish the 
>same occurring in the boring WSIS follow-up process ...

En fait, il faut bien reconnaître que tout cela est rasoir parce que 
nous nous plaçons dans le contexte de leur rasoir technique d'Occam 
[Occlusion américaine ?]. Il semble nécessaire de prendre un peu 
d'air et d'altitude. En particulier de relire très sérieusement la 
première phrase de l'article 2 des droits de l'homme et de faire 
campagne pour la liberté de parole et de pensée dans sa langue, sa 
culture et ses acquis techniques et scientifiques.

jfc 


From anriette at apc.org  Mon Nov 18 10:53:00 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:53:00 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to
 the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org>

Dear Anja

Thank you for this.

I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not
get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this
similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal.

Could it be differences between ministries?

I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa,
the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared
with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.

Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific
matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will
for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a
but left out of the loop.

But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments,
including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder
participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly
put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip
service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable
also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their
speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by
multi-stakeholder IG.

That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear
commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of
proposed solutions.

Anriette


On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists,
> I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India
> made to the WGEC (see below this message and here:
> http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/
> )
>
> Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal
> seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications
> and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly
> vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet
> governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this
> month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a
> multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very
> similar to the earlier UN CIRP.
>
> Comments most welcome.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
>   Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take
>   over the governance of the Internet?
>
>
>       by Anja Kovacs
>
> /Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. /
>
> In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)
> <http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, which met for the second
> time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following:
>
>     The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral
>     body for formulation of international Internet-related public
>     policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and
>     relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in
>     advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in
>     Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop
>     globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated
>     with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.
>
> Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within
> the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with
> India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related
> Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have
> been revived.
>
> Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is
> problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse
> governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose
> dominance needs to be established at the expense of other
> stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other
> stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet
> governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles
> defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where
> the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something
> that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting,
> India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the
> Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect
> its proposal.
>
> Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only
> came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil
> society representative. The latter took with this a position quite
> radically different from other Indian members of civil society active
> in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in
> this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet
> governance is the way forward.
>
> Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there
> might at times be space for multilateralism within this
> multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes
> to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to
> privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from
> that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating
> treaties is their job.
>
> However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones
> currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a
> multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders,
> including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go
> forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of
> government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the
> problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments.
> This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not
> necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet
> policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global
> geopolitics.
>
> The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also
> for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues
> associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet
> resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the
> coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies
> overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without
> their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To
> think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can
> be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of
> all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who
> often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way
> forward) is obviously deeply flawed.
>
> The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on
> how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained
> in the Tunis Agenda.
>
> India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that
> would privilege governments in the making of international
> Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic
> consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been
> established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of
> this year.
>
> For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a
> surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications
> and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year
> (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism
> for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this
> model.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/64a83428/attachment.htm>

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Mon Nov 18 16:34:46 2013
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:34:46 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAGF_KH-p3FtN+7RZG0DnJh=L3hcjwsoY7=DpOvXdTwfz4PnujA@mail.gmail.com>

Many governments experience internal tensions in those issues. Between
foreign Affairs ministries and Justice/interior/home affairs or
communications ministries, etc...

Which is normal given their diverse points of views and responsibilities.

B.


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

>  Dear Anja
>
> Thank you for this.
>
> I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get
> the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity
> with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal.
>
> Could it be differences between ministries?
>
> I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the
> ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with,
> or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.
>
> Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific
> matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for
> the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left
> out of the loop.
>
> But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments,
> including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation,
> should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral
> model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to
> 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in
> multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs
> without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG.
>
> That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear
> commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed
> solutions.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I
> wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to
> the WGEC (see below this message and here:
> http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/)
>
> Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal
> seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and
> Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about
> his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However,
> during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government
> again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be
> established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.
>
> Comments most welcome.
>
>  Best,
> Anja
>
>  Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over
> the governance of the Internet?  by Anja Kovacs
>
> *Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give
> the strong impression that this is indeed the case. *
>
> In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>,
> which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government
> recommended the following:
>
> The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body
> for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The
> proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant
> inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity
> within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG
> report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on
> public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of
> critical Internet resources.
>
> Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the
> field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s
> earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies
> within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived.
>
> Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is
> problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse
> governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose
> dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders.
> Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only
> be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only
> be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these
> definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are
> outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s
> WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of
> the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its
> proposal.
>
> Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only
> came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society
> representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically
> different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet
> governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who
> believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way
> forward.
>
> Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there
> might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder
> model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion
> that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in
> the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments
> would take over as negotiating treaties is their job.
>
> However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones
> currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a
> multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including
> on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The
> India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance
> in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus
> requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs
> by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it
> also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the
> vagaries of global geopolitics.
>
> The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for
> developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues
> associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet
> resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the
> coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies
> overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their
> flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that
> principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or
> effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders
> already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be
> said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.
>
> The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to
> fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis
> Agenda.
>
> India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that
> would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related
> public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a
> Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government
> precisely for such purposes in August of this year.
>
> For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise
> - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and
> Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as
> recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective
> Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model.
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (
www.internetjurisdiction.net)
Member, ICANN Board of Directors
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/6ee2645c/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Nov 18 19:15:24 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:15:24 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to
 Address Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org> <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org>
Message-ID: <3C3AEF25-30F7-45FA-89B6-AD1DE1AB6135@cafonso.ca>

Dear Anri,

This is one of the 5 panels announced by Icann in Durban.

It is an Icann panel, not some group who will lead the meeting's preparatory process.

BTW *now* is the time to send the CS statements to BR.

If I can ba of help, let me know.

frt rgds

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 18/11/2013, at 02:22, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Not one person from civil society who has been active in IGF since the WSIS process.
> 
> Frankly, I am not at all surprised, but it is still extremely disappointing and just hope this does not signal what we can expect from the Brazil meeting.
> 
> Moreover, developing country representation is extremely poor.
> 
> Agree with Jeremy that we should act.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
> On 18/11/2013 04:06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> > On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran
>       wrote:
> 
>       >> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the
>       issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - 
> 
>       >>
> 
>       >> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early
>       2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for
>       global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such
>       cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance
>       challenges."
> 
>       >>
> 
>       >>
> <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html>
> 
>       >
> 
>       > So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the
>       civil society representatives for the High Level Panel on the
>       Future of Global Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its
>       5th panel on Internet evolution.  Previously Fadi had claimed that
>       the fate of the 5th panel would be a decision for (what is now)
>       the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just more bluff.
> 
>       >
> 
>       > The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on
>       our behalf do not include the most expert names on Internet
>       governance evolution.  And meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil
>       society in other processes such as in the UNGA draft resolution on
>       the right to privacy in the digital age.  The technical community,
>       supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, is
>       eating broader civil society alive.
> 
>       >
> 
>       > We are being completely left behind while we are dithering
>       over questions about whether to send the letter nominating our
>       representatives to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing
>       list should be open or closed.  It is absolutely imperative now
>       that we put internal process issues on hold, and focus on urgent
>       substantive issues.
> 
>       >
> 
>       > Will post something more practical about all this to the new
>       (though now already mis-named) "summit" list.
> 
>       >
> 
>       >
> 
>       > -- 
> 
>       >
> 
>       > *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
> 
>       >
> 
>       > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>       knowledge hub |
>       http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
>       >
> 
>       > @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.
> 
>       >
> 
>       > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are
>       strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your
>       end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 
>       >
> 
> - -- 
> - ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSiaQZAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewvJsH/2UN20/QDncUSO3Ksuzz7RbU
> 9AxjK13KM0nxy+jmfJnzMQ1Vg9rpv3N3wN7DiLqkw4+V2PZl0qZ69tgIlpoCO2xG
> wgLJ1vau7yADIDNXLGSucmFUw3+qcIW6tHxWAAuCx/6VYrJkyLUpab6E/JDS0u2k
> +pQgkHTwbrpQCUCRWHhzRGIs3G17sMZF8rH7UNaKXk6Cw7yyCkm1imRMTPYrS4Fh
> Vr1U/i49mEx+cV9ejhbMU/aLY/8VAOBzljt3j5RccwDEF0NmDlLkdPlIfRNSjX+H
> 8Ye7m3rJgzcc+v4ZnmpGHVPUl7/KVwURNgSV5pMOg5aEi29J4UuDl30Fct5Vz9s=
> =ViIp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131118/7def8bb5/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Tue Nov 19 02:41:31 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:11:31 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to
 the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <EE86D703-8AC7-4879-BCB9-924793C7758D@hserus.net>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<528A37DC.1030908@apc.org>
	<EE86D703-8AC7-4879-BCB9-924793C7758D@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBgoJuKZN85c_JA+Oed1GSSvvmTbHLCuwBoWNZuM25FNw@mail.gmail.com>

The same questions, of whether it was a case of the left hand not knowing
what the right hand was doing, were raised earlier, when the CIRP proposal
was first made, and such questions seemed to be justified when the Minister
of Communications subsequently repeatedly confirmed his commitment to
multistakeholder models of governance, including at such high-profile
events as the Baku IGF. In other words, clearly communication gaps exist
within the Indian government. But to think that the same government would
make the same mistakes on the same issue twice is rather tragic, and
worrying, especially where the absence of consultation is concerned.

Best,
Anja




On 19 November 2013 04:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> We need to be even more vigilant when other, nominally CS, individuals or
> organizations have an agenda or propose solutions entirely at cross
> purposes to our interests.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> >
> > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear
> commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed
> solutions.
> >
> > Anriette
>



-- 
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/20131119/b16d231d/attachment.htm>

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Tue Nov 19 04:50:39 2013
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:50:39 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to
 Address Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org>
 <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwp+xTkbCTZo2o6KXrqsziJoRA6n8JOXTzry0ExGDXuZVQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1 Anriette

They should wake up and smell the coffee. In the findings of WGEC
questionnaire
http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC_Summary_of_Responses.pdf,
one thing that came out very clearly was to enable stakeholders from
developing countries to participate on equal footing.


Regards.

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva
twitter.com/lordmwesh
google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh


On 18 November 2013 05:22, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Not one person from civil society who has been active in IGF since the
> WSIS process.
>
> Frankly, I am not at all surprised, but it is still extremely
> disappointing and just hope this does not signal what we can expect from
> the Brazil meeting.
>
> Moreover, developing country representation is extremely poor.
>
> Agree with Jeremy that we should act.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
> On 18/11/2013 04:06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> > On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote:
> >> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues
> surrounding global Internet cooperation -
> >>
> >> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for
> public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet
> cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for
> future Internet governance challenges."
> >>
> >>
> <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html><http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html>
> >
> > So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil
> society representatives for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global
> Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel on Internet
> evolution.  Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel
> would be a decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this
> was just more bluff.
> >
> > The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf
> do not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution.  And
> meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as
> in the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age.
> The technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars
> in revenue, is eating broader civil society alive.
> >
> > We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over
> questions about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives
> to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or
> closed.  It is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process
> issues on hold, and focus on urgent substantive issues.
> >
> > Will post something more practical about all this to the new (though now
> already mis-named) "summit" list.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *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
> >
> > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >
> > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org><http://www.consumersinternational.org>|
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational><http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
> >
> > Read our email confidentiality notice
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality><http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
> >
> > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >
>
> - --
> - ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSiaQZAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewvJsH/2UN20/QDncUSO3Ksuzz7RbU
> 9AxjK13KM0nxy+jmfJnzMQ1Vg9rpv3N3wN7DiLqkw4+V2PZl0qZ69tgIlpoCO2xG
> wgLJ1vau7yADIDNXLGSucmFUw3+qcIW6tHxWAAuCx/6VYrJkyLUpab6E/JDS0u2k
> +pQgkHTwbrpQCUCRWHhzRGIs3G17sMZF8rH7UNaKXk6Cw7yyCkm1imRMTPYrS4Fh
> Vr1U/i49mEx+cV9ejhbMU/aLY/8VAOBzljt3j5RccwDEF0NmDlLkdPlIfRNSjX+H
> 8Ye7m3rJgzcc+v4ZnmpGHVPUl7/KVwURNgSV5pMOg5aEi29J4UuDl30Fct5Vz9s=
> =ViIp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/0e76171c/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Nov 19 05:19:16 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:19:16 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] full title of BR conference
In-Reply-To: <jur4fgkb6fk5gtdc0aefgrdr.1384617268387@email.android.com>
References: <jur4fgkb6fk5gtdc0aefgrdr.1384617268387@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <528B3B24.7020401@cafonso.ca>

OK, you have certainly noted that "conference" has been replaced with 
"meeting". Do not ask me why... :)

--c.a.

On 11/16/2013 01:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be:
>
> Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance
> Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet
> Much better! ;)
>
>
>
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>

From valeriab at apc.org  Tue Nov 19 08:59:27 2013
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:59:27 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Open letter from APC to organisers of the International
 Conference on Global Internet Governance
References: <528B4DE5.6020100@apc.org>
Message-ID: <B0CE7768-0009-4466-BE12-ED6E37D4B9E2@apc.org>

Dear all,

Sharing here a letter from APC members to the Brazilians.  We actually  
started drafting this the week just after the IGF, but it took a while.

It is not intended to bypass any other process. It was just an attempt  
to give input on the agenda from APC members.

Valeria


>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APC_Letter_GovBrazil_IGMeeting_2014.pdf
Type: video/x-flv
Size: 58656 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/81af9cce/attachment.flv>
-------------- next part --------------






From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 19 09:13:15 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:43:15 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to
 the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org>
Message-ID: <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net>


On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Anja
>
> Thank you for this.
>
> I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not 
> get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this 
> similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal.
>
> Could it be differences between ministries?

No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with 
the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the 
WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my 
understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter 
ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the 
relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level 
clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest...

While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets 
demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good 
people of the world seem to live and breathe.....

Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just 
proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that 
OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and 
Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest 
countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? 
If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' 
Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the 
differences are on this point, lets discuss it.)

Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a 
political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely 
unable to understand how people and organisations that rather 
enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy 
making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it 
is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the 
devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting 
thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested 
against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making 
Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich 
country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those 
countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be 
something for civil society to be protesting about....

Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the 
multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country 
institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, 
in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps 
do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that 
business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making 
on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it 
(and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know 
this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a 
bit sheepish!

So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put 
this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to 
developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new 
institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the 
governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of 
re-distributing all kinds of power?

I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given 
the answer to the above question - why these double standards between 
developed countries and the developing ones?  Why does the meaning of 
multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an 
institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's 
CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented 
by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers?

Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of 
global IG...


parminder


>
> I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, 
> the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully 
> cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.
>
> Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific 
> matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works 
> will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are 
> just a but left out of the loop.
>
> But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, 
> including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder 
> participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly 
> put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip 
> service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable 
> also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their 
> speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by 
> multi-stakeholder IG.
>
> That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear 
> commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of 
> proposed solutions.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, 
>> I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India 
>> made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: 
>> http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ 
>> )
>>
>> Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal 
>> seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of 
>> Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become 
>> increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for 
>> Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier 
>> this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a 
>> multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very 
>> similar to the earlier UN CIRP.
>>
>> Comments most welcome.
>>
>> Best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>   Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take
>>   over the governance of the Internet?
>>
>>
>>       by Anja Kovacs
>>
>> /Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation 
>> give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. /
>>
>> In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) 
>> <http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, which met for the second 
>> time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the 
>> following:
>>
>>     The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a
>>     multilateral body for formulation of international
>>     Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should
>>     include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and
>>     international organisations in advisory capacity within their
>>     respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report.
>>     Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on
>>     public policy issues associated with the coordination and
>>     management of critical Internet resources.
>>
>> Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within 
>> the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with 
>> India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for 
>> Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus 
>> seems to have been revived.
>>
>> Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is 
>> problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse 
>> governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose 
>> dominance needs to be established at the expense of other 
>> stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other 
>> stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet 
>> governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles 
>> defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially 
>> where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is 
>> something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC 
>> meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions 
>> of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might 
>> affect its proposal.
>>
>> Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC 
>> only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian 
>> civil society representative. The latter took with this a position 
>> quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society 
>> active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil 
>> society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for 
>> Internet governance is the way forward.
>>
>> Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that 
>> there might at times be space for multilateralism within this 
>> multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group 
>> comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the 
>> right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, 
>> then from that point onwards, governments would take over as 
>> negotiating treaties is their job.
>>
>> However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones 
>> currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a 
>> multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, 
>> including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go 
>> forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of 
>> government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the 
>> problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. 
>> This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not 
>> necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet 
>> policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global 
>> geopolitics.
>>
>> The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also 
>> for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues 
>> associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet 
>> resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the 
>> coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies 
>> overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without 
>> their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To 
>> think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can 
>> be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of 
>> all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who 
>> often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way 
>> forward) is obviously deeply flawed.
>>
>> The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on 
>> how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained 
>> in the Tunis Agenda.
>>
>> India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body 
>> that would privilege governments in the making of international 
>> Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic 
>> consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been 
>> established by the government precisely for such purposes in August 
>> of this year.
>>
>> For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a 
>> surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of 
>> Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed 
>> over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of 
>> multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own 
>> commitment to this model.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/fb488c9d/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Nov  1 16:26:21 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:26:21 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil-Germany Motion to GA on Privacy
Message-ID: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com>

http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-di
gital-age


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 19 09:35:47 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:05:47 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting
Message-ID: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net>

Dear All

There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be 
taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the 
Brazil meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was 
overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be 
allowed, and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the 
active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing 
to come out of our paralysis?

Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and 
independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently 
present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net 
or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our 
liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. 
Havent the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do 
it a bit later). The following is a quick text suggestion...

    We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased
    to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a
    ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) . We are
    happy to help the government of Brazil organise this meeting and
    take it to a successful conclusion.  We have chosen the below
    mentioned four persons to be our liason to the Brazilian government
    and also to be put on any steering committee that may be set up.

    ....
    ......

    ......
    ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons

    Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal
    presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the
    proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet.....
    We will route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through
    these reps...

    Signed


(ends)

parminder




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/f2b7c4f9/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Tue Nov 19 10:07:53 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:07:53 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>


I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts.

Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by.  People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding.

With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe.  It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms.  It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership).  In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful.  Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be.

The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued.  Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line.  In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that.

My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights.  Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process.   I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that.  It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions.

I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.)  I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want.  I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something  different to you.

In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more.  So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC


On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Dear Anja

Thank you for this.

I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal.

Could it be differences between ministries?

No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest...

While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe.....

Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.)

Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about....

Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish!

So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power?

I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones?  Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers?

Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG...


parminder




I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.

Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop.

But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG.

That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions.

Anriette

On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ )

Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.

Comments most welcome.
Best,
Anja
Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet?
by Anja Kovacs

Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case.

In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following:

The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.

Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived.

Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal.

Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward.

Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job.

However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics.

The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.

The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda.

India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year.

For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model.



--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>



--

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

anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>

executive director, association for progressive communications

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

po box 29755, melville 2109

south africa

tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/d3870467/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Nov 19 10:33:20 2013
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:33:20 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net>
References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK336uzHTcy=xdd0yCvBg6U6QAPemhmFoYz1v0k-k_KvMg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder,

I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also
arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in
the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during
meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other
spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board
members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the
present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to
change opinion) is:

- It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and
participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces,
sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not
clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be
important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to
exchange with other groups and this could be the channel

- We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is representative
and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself

- 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people
are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication
purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people
are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we
feel comfortable with it.

- Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings

Marília




On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Dear All
>
> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be
> taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil
> meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was
> overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed,
> and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG
> kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out
> of our paralysis?
>
> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent
> liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons
> directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just
> forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have
> to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if
> some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a
> quick text suggestion...
>
>  We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to
> note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the
> official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of
> Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion.  We
> have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the
> Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may
> be set up.
>
> ....
> ......
>
> ......
> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons
>
> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal
> presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed
> multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route
> our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>
> Signed
>
>
> (ends)
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/c38c5728/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Nov 19 10:38:56 2013
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:38:56 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK336uzHTcy=xdd0yCvBg6U6QAPemhmFoYz1v0k-k_KvMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK336uzHTcy=xdd0yCvBg6U6QAPemhmFoYz1v0k-k_KvMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2mh=8xDQLpYdJ9eih=Z_8FEDC7yzBa4=gy9MDe9EP18A@mail.gmail.com>

Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested,
just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option
for participation.
M


On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Parminder,
>
> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also
> arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in
> the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during
> meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other
> spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board
> members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the
> present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to
> change opinion) is:
>
> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and
> participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces,
> sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not
> clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be
> important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to
> exchange with other groups and this could be the channel
>
> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is
> representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself
>
> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people
> are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication
> purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people
> are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we
> feel comfortable with it.
>
> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings
>
> Marília
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  Dear All
>>
>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be
>> taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil
>> meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was
>> overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed,
>> and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG
>> kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out
>> of our paralysis?
>>
>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and
>> independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present
>> our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or
>> whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our
>> liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent
>> the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit
>> later). The following is a quick text suggestion...
>>
>>  We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to
>> note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the
>> official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of
>> Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion.  We
>> have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the
>> Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may
>> be set up.
>>
>> ....
>> ......
>>
>> ......
>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons
>>
>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal
>> presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed
>> multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will
>> route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>>
>> Signed
>>
>>
>> (ends)
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>


-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/1f17c4e6/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Nov 19 10:50:19 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 07:50:19 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2mh=8xDQLpYdJ9eih=Z_8FEDC7yzBa4=gy9MDe9EP18A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK336uzHTcy=xdd0yCvBg6U6QAPemhmFoYz1v0k-k_KvMg@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK2mh=8xDQLpYdJ9eih=Z_8FEDC7yzBa4=gy9MDe9EP18A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E8D11EE8-9FD8-4D9E-83A8-0C3DF6471456@gmail.com>

Agree with Marilia

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 19, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option for participation.
> M
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>> 
>> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to change opinion) is:
>> 
>> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups and this could be the channel
>> 
>> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself 
>> 
>> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it. 
>> 
>> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings
>> 
>> Marília  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> Dear All
>>> 
>>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of our paralysis?
>>> 
>>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick text suggestion... 
>>> 
>>> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion.  We have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may be set up.
>>> 
>>> ....
>>> ......
>>> 
>>> ......
>>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons 
>>> 
>>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>>> 
>>> Signed
>>> 
>>> (ends)
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Marília Maciel
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>> 
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>> 
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/d27cfd04/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Nov 19 10:52:53 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:52:53 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <E8D11EE8-9FD8-4D9E-83A8-0C3DF6471456@gmail.com>
References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK336uzHTcy=xdd0yCvBg6U6QAPemhmFoYz1v0k-k_KvMg@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK2mh=8xDQLpYdJ9eih=Z_8FEDC7yzBa4=gy9MDe9EP18A@mail.gmail.com> <E8D11EE8-9FD8-4D9E-83A8-0C3DF6471456@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528B8955.3000906@cdt.org>

+1 as well
On 19/11/2013 15:50, Carolina wrote:
> Agree with Marilia
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com 
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder 
>> suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 
>> 1net as an option for participation.
>> M
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel 
>> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Parminder,
>>
>>     I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS
>>     are also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for
>>     civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we
>>     raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian
>>     government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are
>>     doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members),
>>     with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the
>>     present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve
>>     the right to change opinion) is:
>>
>>     - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together:
>>     populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves
>>     in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual
>>     organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but
>>     there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be
>>     out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups
>>     and this could be the channel
>>
>>     - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is
>>     representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself
>>
>>     - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What
>>     people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For
>>     communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should
>>     reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until
>>     1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it.
>>
>>     - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings
>>
>>     Marília
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder
>>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>         Dear All
>>
>>         There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov
>>         may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov
>>         participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net
>>         structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling
>>         among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we
>>         should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the
>>         active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we
>>         know willing to come out of our paralysis?
>>
>>         Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct
>>         and independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to
>>         independently present our liasons directly accountable to us
>>         and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the
>>         four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have
>>         to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for
>>         that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit
>>         later). The following is a quick text suggestion...
>>
>>             We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups
>>             are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal
>>             announcement of a ............. (put the official name of
>>             the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government
>>             of Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a
>>             successful conclusion.  We have chosen the below
>>             mentioned four persons to be our liason to the Brazilian
>>             government and also to be put on any steering committee
>>             that may be set up.
>>
>>             ....
>>             ......
>>
>>             ......
>>             ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons
>>
>>             Please include our above representatives in all meetings,
>>             formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place
>>             regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the
>>             future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to
>>             the organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>>
>>             Signed
>>
>>
>>         (ends)
>>
>>         parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     *Marília Maciel*
>>     Pesquisadora Gestora
>>     Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>
>>     Researcher and Coordinator
>>     Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>     http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>>     DiploFoundation associate
>>     www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *Marília Maciel*
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/0e3f6311/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Nov 19 10:54:29 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:54:29 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2mh=8xDQLpYdJ9eih=Z_8FEDC7yzBa4=gy9MDe9EP18A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net>
	<CACpVkK336uzHTcy=xdd0yCvBg6U6QAPemhmFoYz1v0k-k_KvMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2mh=8xDQLpYdJ9eih=Z_8FEDC7yzBa4=gy9MDe9EP18A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_Xd6owy-f2TEtw4i3ppMaxKefh5GK02ZXVA5AA3o1crw@mail.gmail.com>

I guess not everybody has seen the report message sent by Adiel on the 1net
list and maybe I should forward it here after this for your direct
consideration.

There are a number of committees being formed, and 1net has clearly
recognized the place of CS in those committee and the CS right to pursue
other avenues of engagement with Brazilian counterparts, including
government.

So nobody forces us to either be there or have our own channel. We can do
both, and I would urge this group to show a spirit of cooperative with 1net.

Rgds,

mc


On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested,
> just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option
> for participation.
> M
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Parminder,
>>
>> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also
>> arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in
>> the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during
>> meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other
>> spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board
>> members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the
>> present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to
>> change opinion) is:
>>
>> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and
>> participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces,
>> sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not
>> clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be
>> important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to
>> exchange with other groups and this could be the channel
>>
>> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is
>> representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself
>>
>> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people
>> are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication
>> purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people
>> are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we
>> feel comfortable with it.
>>
>> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings
>>
>> Marília
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear All
>>>
>>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be
>>> taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil
>>> meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was
>>> overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed,
>>> and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG
>>> kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out
>>> of our paralysis?
>>>
>>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and
>>> independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present
>>> our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or
>>> whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our
>>> liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent
>>> the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit
>>> later). The following is a quick text suggestion...
>>>
>>>  We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to
>>> note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the
>>> official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of
>>> Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion.  We
>>> have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the
>>> Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may
>>> be set up.
>>>
>>> ....
>>> ......
>>>
>>> ......
>>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons
>>>
>>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal
>>> presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed
>>> multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will
>>> route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>>>
>>> Signed
>>>
>>>
>>> (ends)
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Marília Maciel*
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/28953733/attachment.htm>

From claudio at derechosdigitales.org  Tue Nov 19 10:56:24 2013
From: claudio at derechosdigitales.org (Claudio Ruiz)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:56:24 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to
 the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <0291C3F0-DCFF-4408-8930-A257072D5084@derechosdigitales.org>

On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:07, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> (…) I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.)  

+1

> (…) So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send

+1000^n

Best,
— Claudio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/9cdb5e42/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Nov 19 10:57:42 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:57:42 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [I-coordination] Brazil Meeting Planning
In-Reply-To: <9581032E-B850-4842-98A4-53F02723B1B9@afrinic.net>
References: <9581032E-B850-4842-98A4-53F02723B1B9@afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_4QE0QVRTOdYLXO3zmhJkGc-YDuA3fO6=ryzipGg8gfQ@mail.gmail.com>

fyi

my understanding is that we have, preferably, about one week to identify
reps or liaisons or whatever we'd like to call them for a number of these
committees.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net>
Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Subject: [I-coordination] Brazil Meeting Planning
To: "I-coordination at nro.net" <i-coordination at nro.net>


Dear 1net participants

Following a meeting held this week between Brazil and some I*
representatives, we have got some further details that I would like to
share with you on the meeting, specifically on its planing and the need for
us (1net initiative) to contribute by appointing representatives to the
committees being setup to drive its preparation. The information below will
be used to update the Meeting concept paper circulated on this list earlier
(which can now be published on our web site as well)

It is clear that the tight timelines for this meeting will require
expedient processes,
and would ask that everyone work as best they can within the constraints we
have been
given. While this is not ideal from a planning perspective, it is better
for us to still strive to work together as a single community to get
something positive out of the meeting in Brazil.

An extract of the salient points of the meeting is reproduced further down.

As immediate action from this group we will need:

1.  Representatives from the 1net initiative who can be in Sao Paolo on 25
November to attend part of the CGI meeting along with Virgilio Almeida
where CGI support to the Brazil meeting will be discussed. We are also
invited to be represented the next day (26 November) at the press
conference where Brazil will announce additional details about the meeting
(most likely some of the information in this planning document];  If you
are interested and can attend either of these days, please notify me (
cel at afrinic.net);  we do not know at this time how many or process for
selection of attendees.

2. The meeting secretariat apparently will have some 1net representatives;
 again,
if you are interested, please identify yourself.  We might need to wait to
see how
CGI (presuming they accept being the meeting secretariat) wishes to handle
selection of these representatives.

3. There are 4 important meeting planning committees; these identify some
specific counts of reps from various communities.  while the I* group can
figure out how to handle the Internet technical community representation,
we will need civil society, business and academia to also quickly nominate
representatives to these committees. While We do not yet have timing
regarding how long to appoint representatives, but given the meeting
timelines it would be best if these were completed by the end of this month.

We count on your cooperation and support throughout this process.

Thank you.

==================== Information gathered from the meeting
==========================

Name: Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

Date/Location: Sao Paolo, Brazil on April 23/24, 2014.

Brazil is forming a global multistakeholder steering committee to organize
the event.  The committee will include representatives from the Brazilian
CGI, the Brazilian government, and representatives of 1net (the global
dialog on the evolution of multistakeholder internet governance). 1net
representatives will include members of the global technical, academic,
civil society, and business communities.

** Purpose. The meeting will aim to produce universal internet principles
and an institutional framework for multistakeholder internet governance.
The framework will include a roadmap to evolve and globalize current
institutions, and new mechanisms to address the emerging internet
governance topics.  The conference will not include any discussion or
activity to create solutions for specific topics such as security, privacy,
surveillance, etc.

- Success is a final joint declaration of internet principles and an
institutional framework for multistakeholder internet governance. The
declaration should aim to be concrete/practical, linked to prior/current
internet governance initiatives, and hopefully include some next steps.

- The conference is not intend to discuss or engage in creating solutions
for specific topics such as security, privacy, surveillance, etc.

- Any party/stakeholder may submit proposals to the conference. Proposed
deadline for submittal of proposals is set as March 1, 2014. Giving a 60
day period for community consultation and proposal consolidation prior to
the conference in late April/early May 2014.

- One of several input sources to this conference will be the high-level
panel that ICANN will introduce shortly in partnership with The University
of Southern California / Annenberg Foundation and the World Economic Forum.
The panel aims to produce its final document by end of February with
proposed Internet principles and an institutional framework.  Virgilio
Almeida will act as the chair of the Brazilian side throughout the
preparatory processes.   CGI will be asked to serve in an important
operational and strategic role. Virgilio will seek the support of all the
CGI stakeholders at their regularly scheduled meeting of November 25 in Sao
Paolo. He asks that /1net community leaders to attend part of that meeting,
to lend their global support of the Brazil conference.

Planning & Organisation: 4 committees will be formed to ensure the success
of the meeting (see details below). The four committees will be
supported/coordinated by a common secretariat to manage the work of the
committees and coordinate communications activities including a conference
web site. The secretariat is likely to be housed at CGI (pending approval
on the 25th); the secretariat will also include representation from /1net
(the global Internet community) to ensure constant alignment.

++ Committee No.1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee. This is the
committee that will set the high-level political tone and objectives of the
conference.  Committee members will engage on a global level with
stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its
chances of success. This committee will include 8 high level governmental
representatives (ministerial level), and 8 /1net Internet community
representatives (senior executive level).

The 8 governmental reps. will include Brazil and other co-hosting
governments to be selected by Brazil. We discussed Germany, India, Ghana,
Turkey, and one of the "five-eyes" (possibly Australia or the UK). But this
selection is completely up to Brazil.

The 8 /1net Internet community members will be selected by the emerging
/1net coordination committee. They will be selected to include 2 from
industry/business; 2 from civil society; 2 from technical organizations;
1from academia; and 1 from NGO.

++ Committee No.2: Council of Governmental advisors. Participation in this
committee will be managed by Ambassador Benedicto (Foreign affairs) to
include any other governmental representatives who wish to provide
input/advice to Committee No.1. This ensures inclusivity and openness to
broad governmental engagement and eventual participation at the conference.

++ Committee No.3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee. This committee
owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining
conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received
by March 1 into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address,
managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all
communications activities pre-during-post conference.  This committee will
include  6 governmental representatives, and 6 /1net community
representatives.

The 6 governmental reps. will include Brazil, CGI, and other government
representatives to be selected by Brazil. We discussed the EU and South
Korea as good possibilities. But this selection is completely up to Brazil.

The 6 /1net community members will be selected by the emerging /1net
coordination committee. They will be selected to include 2 from
industry/business; 2 from civil society; 2 from technical organizations.

++ Committee No.4: Logistics/Organizing Committee. This is the team that
will oversee meeting management, venue, translation, activities, travel
visa support, etc. This committee will be staffed and managed by CGI (again
pending their approval at their 25th meeting). The global community may be
asked for support as needed.

** Finances. Brazil offered to cover all meeting expenses (thank you
Brazil!). We then discussed that /1net community may organize an
independent effort to support parties from developing countries who may
need financial support to attend the meeting.

** Launch. The conference global launch will be at a press conference to
held in Sao Paolo at the CGI office on the morning of Tuesday November 26.
The press conference will include members of the Brazilian community
(government and CGI),  /1net community leaders, and hopefully some co-host
governments to ensure broad/global representation.
------

- a.

_______________________________________________
I-coordination mailing list
I-coordination at nro.net
https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/1a59e54a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 322 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/1a59e54a/attachment.sig>

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Tue Nov 19 16:15:31 2013
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:15:31 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwp9_eeAbkz7NsZr=ZcZvPJm+UfQhqL4KM7f-FiPP4MyEQ@mail.gmail.com>

> In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy
> leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old
> voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or
> more.
>

+1
I agree with you Andrew. The new generation should fill the boots but also
grow with the lessons learned by those who came before and avoid their
pitfalls. And youth is not age, but new leaderships and thinking being
pumped into the policy making processes. We should avoid a situation where
stale ideas are being recycled with the same effect. Remember, “Insanity is
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
But we should not forget those seasoned CS who still continue to be voices
of reason in all these processes.


______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya.
twitter.com/lordmwesh
google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131119/35092584/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Nov  1 16:30:29 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:30:29 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil-Germany Motion to GA on Privacy
In-Reply-To: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com>
References: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAf+E=RsVba+34m2gD+mBOGGsROzLHDnUq=E2ck2BaJpTg@mail.gmail.com>

have the original link? pls


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:26 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-di
> gital-age
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/03b6048c/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Nov 19 20:28:25 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:28:25 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Open letter from APC to organisers of the
 International Conference on Global Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <B0CE7768-0009-4466-BE12-ED6E37D4B9E2@apc.org>
References: <528B4DE5.6020100@apc.org> <B0CE7768-0009-4466-BE12-ED6E37D4B9E2@apc.org>
Message-ID: <053d01cee58f$cf5dad30$6e190790$@gmail.com>

FWIW, probably due to my oversight (I assumed that the endorsements for the
letter were an opt in rather than opt out), I'm listed as one of the
endorsers of this letter.

While I agree with almost everything in the letter and I think it is well
crafted and covers many of the important issues from a CS perspective I
can't agree with the final paragraphs where there is I think, an undue
emphasis on and endorsement of the IGF.  

I think the IGF and particularly the current structuring and operation of
the MAG is deeply flawed and at this juncture would not be able to support
any of the additional functions which, based on this letter would be
indicated as being assigned to it.

To my mind, I would want to see a fully reformed MAG/IGF and a
democratically realized MAG operational before I was willing to entrust
significant IG responsibilities to it. Even then I'm not sure I would want
the IGF to have additional  responsibilities since I think that this might
be a back door way of introducing a potentially highly suspect form of
Multistakeholderism into IG.

By way of a brief explanation.  My primary identification for my involvement
with Internet Governance issues is through my some 15 years work in various
aspects of community informatics/grassroots use of ICTs for community
enablement and empowerment. My concern with IG has been and continues to be
to ensure that the often unheard voices of grassroots ICT  users and
particularly those at the margins--the rural populations, indigenous
peoples, slum dwellers, those with physical disabilities are given due
recognition in the deliberations that might affect them concerning their
future with the Internet.   

In these areas I see little attention being given or interest in these areas
within the IGF/MAG as they might impact what would be a very large
proportion and probably majority of the global population and an even larger
proportion of those currently lacking Internet access. I also see a very
extensive concern (particularly as presented through Civil Society) with
individual rights, but almost no attention being given to issues of
collective rights to the Internet such as those which are of special
interest to Indigenous peoples and those for whom affordable individual
internet access and use is for the foreseeable future an unrealizable dream
or given distinct cultural priorities a matter of only indirect interest. As
well, I see the Internet as a huge creator of wealth and opportunity but I
equally see little attention among those discussing Internet Governance
issues on how such wealth and opportunity might be more equally distributed
including to marginalized populations to ensure the well-being of all and
not simply the exaggerated wealth of some.

If the letter is further circulated I  would ask that my name be removed
from it.

Thanks (and in future I'll be rather more attentive to these matters as I
see now that the sign on in APC is an opt out/rather than an opt in.

Best,

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Valeria Betancourt
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:59 AM
To: &lt bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: [bestbits] Open letter from APC to organisers of the International
Conference on Global Internet Governance

Dear all,

Sharing here a letter from APC members to the Brazilians.  We actually
started drafting this the week just after the IGF, but it took a while.

It is not intended to bypass any other process. It was just an attempt to
give input on the agenda from APC members.

Valeria


>


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Nov 19 23:06:07 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:06:07 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
Message-ID: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>

Dear all,

Here are those who have been nominated for election or re-election to the MAG by Best Bits participants.  This list, if agreed, would supplement (and may even be incorporated into, subject to their approval) the lists that other civil society groups such as the IGC put forward.  But if a full or partial joint nomination can't be accomplished, we will still try to organise a joint letter to the UN Secretariat listing the distinct slates of nominees and the different processes that were used to put them together.
Matthew Shears - Centre for Democracy and Technology (male, USA)
Anriette Esterhuysen - APC [renewal] (female, South Africa)
Nnenna Nwakanma - World Wide Web Foundation (female, Nigeria)
Bertrand de la Chapelle - Internet & Jurisdiction Project (male, Europe)
Izumi Aizu [renewal] - Tama University, Institute for HyperNetwork Society (male, Japan)
Ana Perdigao - various, see below (female, Europe)
The steering committee did not exclude anyone whose nomination we received, however in terms of the criteria that were posted earlier, we draw attention to the fact that Ana Perdigao is a "new face" to most of us, so we cannot verify how closely she complies with them, notably being "active civil society participants".  She has been invited to post to this list to introduce herself and to clarify this and any other aspects.  Meanwhile some biographical information that she sent is below.[0]

Most of the other candidates are well known to many of us, but we invite them also to send biographies to the list if they haven't already done so.

With the above proviso, we are asking this list to endorse the above as candidates for the MAG - not to the exclusion of others, but at least to fill in some gaps in other lists, and in order to possibly be incorporated into the IGC's list (subject to their approval), this endorsement would have to be made by midnight 21 November GMT/UTC.

Due to shortness of remaining time this will have to be an "opt out" process, so if you would prefer that we NOT forward any of the above candidate names, please let us know either by posting to the list or to steering at lists.bestbits.net.  In case we need to extend the process, then we do have about 10 more days before the nominations have to be forwarded to the IGC Secretariat, but we would not be able to join forces with the IGC if our process goes beyond midnight 21 November GMT/UTC.

[0] Ana writes: "I participated in the WSIS and taking part in several panels on the multistakeholder approach. I have a legal background and I am currently a Senior Consultant in ICT and Internet in public affairs in Brussels. I am member of ISOC and in particular of the Portuguese Chapter and the Italian one. I am involved also in the Eurodig and this year I attended my first IGF.
I am also in the steering committee of MediaLaws. I am correspondent for Portugal and Italy for IRIS the Audiovisual Journal of the European Audiovisual Observatory of the Council of Europe. I am a member of the Association Suisse de droit International and one of the co-founding members of the ONG Hemesphere, focus in development and cooperation through culture. I am co-founder of the association IdƏaree that has the aim to study the idea of the modern identity through the geographic space, Europe and the Member States, through culture. I am activist as well with Unicef Brussels.


-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/fb9a6116/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 20 00:09:41 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:39:41 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2mh=8xDQLpYdJ9eih=Z_8FEDC7yzBa4=gy9MDe9EP18A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK336uzHTcy=xdd0yCvBg6U6QAPemhmFoYz1v0k-k_KvMg@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK2mh=8xDQLpYdJ9eih=Z_8FEDC7yzBa4=gy9MDe9EP18A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528C4415.6050709@itforchange.net>


Marilia

I has asked to only be clear that *for the purpose of organsing the 
forthcoming Brazil meeting* civil society would want independent and 
direct liason with Brazil gov. I have no comment here whether or not we 
engage with 1net and if so how (Though I think we indeed should engage 
laterally with that group.)..... There is adequate evidence that Brazil 
gov thinks that it is ok to have 1net coordinates non gov participation 
on the meeting, We have to specifically address this point. If we dont, 
we remain where we are -- and most likely having to go through the 
1net.... Governments need clear and precise communication on such 
things. In the background where we stand today, that can be made only be 
made by clearly sayign that *we do not want our representation to be 
fronted or channeled through 1net*. Anything less will not clear the 
misconceptions that seem solidly settled in Brazilian's mind at present.

I think we have gone back and forth for too long about what to say to 
the Brazil gov on our role in the Brazil meeting - for about a month 
now... As a consequence our role is being and will continue to be 
determined by default, as a part of other stakeholderholder groups' 
strategies.

I rest my case here, parminder


On Tuesday 19 November 2013 09:08 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder 
> suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 
> 1net as an option for participation.
> M
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel 
> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Parminder,
>
>     I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are
>     also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for
>     civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we
>     raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian
>     government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are doing
>     it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members), with
>     governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the present
>     situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right
>     to change opinion) is:
>
>     - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together:
>     populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves
>     in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual
>     organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but
>     there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be
>     out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups
>     and this could be the channel
>
>     - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is
>     representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself
>
>     - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What
>     people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For
>     communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should
>     reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until
>     1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it.
>
>     - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings
>
>     Marília
>
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder
>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>         Dear All
>
>         There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov
>         may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov
>         participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net
>         structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling
>         among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we
>         should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active
>         IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know
>         willing to come out of our paralysis?
>
>         Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and
>         independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to
>         independently present our liasons directly accountable to us
>         and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the
>         four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have
>         to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for
>         that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit
>         later). The following is a quick text suggestion...
>
>             We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups
>             are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal
>             announcement of a ............. (put the official name of
>             the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of
>             Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful
>             conclusion.  We have chosen the below mentioned four
>             persons to be our liason to the Brazilian government and
>             also to be put on any steering committee that may be set up.
>
>             ....
>             ......
>
>             ......
>             ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons
>
>             Please include our above representatives in all meetings,
>             formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place
>             regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the
>             future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to
>             the organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>
>             Signed
>
>
>         (ends)
>
>         parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     *Marília Maciel*
>     Pesquisadora Gestora
>     Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
>     Researcher and Coordinator
>     Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>     http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
>     DiploFoundation associate
>     www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/58cf8f1f/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 20 00:25:51 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:55:51 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>

Dear BestBits Steering Committee

I know all of the below people  and they make excellent candidates for 
MAG...

However, I remain strongly opposed to BestBits' process of choosing reps 
or nominees.

This is a process designed by the steering committee itself and applied 
by it without due authorisation from the members of BestBits.

In IGC perhaps a lot did not happen because the large majority of those 
present were a little apathetic to the general processes and did not 
proffer their views actively on things. (Maybe that is a structural 
condition of open online groups.)  That was bad and affected IGC's 
effectiveness since things could move forward only with clearer and 
stronger engagement of enough members. We needed enough mass for a rough 
consensus to change things or just to move them forward.

What I see on BestBits is that similar lack of strong engagement by 
members (are there even any members, bec this is being called a 
members-less *platform*) is being used to unilaterally make up whatever 
processes and start applying it.

As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG 
nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's 
membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which 
should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate 
process around it. And I dont see that in place.

I had objected to this process a few days back and surprised to see that 
it still went ahead...

(Jeremy, did you not say on the private list that 'lets put process 
issues on hold' and get on with substantive matters. It is with this 
sensitivity that I have not responded to process related issues 
recently. But was it to just stop any critical views on process, which 
process formation and entrenchment just goes forward.)

parminder

PS: Niether I nor any othee member of my organisation has sought 
nomination to MAG...

On Wednesday 20 November 2013 09:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Here are those who have been nominated for election or re-election to 
> the MAG by Best Bits participants.  This list, if agreed, would 
> supplement (and may even be incorporated into, subject to their 
> approval) the lists that other civil society groups such as the IGC 
> put forward.  But if a full or partial joint nomination can't be 
> accomplished, we will still try to organise a joint letter to the UN 
> Secretariat listing the distinct slates of nominees and the different 
> processes that were used to put them together.
>
>  1. Matthew Shears - Centre for Democracy and Technology (male, USA)
>  2. Anriette Esterhuysen - APC [renewal] (female, South Africa)
>  3. Nnenna Nwakanma - World Wide Web Foundation (female, Nigeria)
>  4. Bertrand de la Chapelle - Internet & Jurisdiction Project (male,
>     Europe)
>  5. Izumi Aizu [renewal] - Tama University, Institute for HyperNetwork
>     Society (male, Japan)
>  6. Ana Perdigao - various, see below (female, Europe)
>
> The steering committee did not exclude anyone whose nomination we 
> received, however in terms of the criteria that were posted earlier, 
> we draw attention to the fact that Ana Perdigao is a "new face" to 
> most of us, so we cannot verify how closely she complies with them, 
> notably being "active civil society participants".  She has been 
> invited to post to this list to introduce herself and to clarify this 
> and any other aspects.  Meanwhile some biographical information that 
> she sent is below.[0]
>
> Most of the other candidates are well known to many of us, but we 
> invite them also to send biographies to the list if they haven't 
> already done so.
>
> With the above proviso, we are asking this list to endorse the above 
> as candidates for the MAG - not to the exclusion of others, but at 
> least to fill in some gaps in other lists, and in order to possibly be 
> incorporated into the IGC's list (subject to their approval), this 
> endorsement would have to be made by midnight 21 November GMT/UTC.
>
> Due to shortness of remaining time this will have to be an "opt out" 
> process, so if you would prefer that we NOT forward any of the above 
> candidate names, please let us know either by posting to the list or 
> to steering at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:steering at lists.bestbits.net>. 
>  In case we need to extend the process, then we do have about 10 more 
> days before the nominations have to be forwarded to the IGC 
> Secretariat, but we would not be able to join forces with the IGC if 
> our process goes beyond midnight 21 November GMT/UTC.
>
> [0] Ana writes: "I participated in the WSIS and taking part in several 
> panels on the multistakeholder approach. I have a legal background and 
> I am currently a Senior Consultant in ICT and Internet in public 
> affairs in Brussels. I am member of ISOC and in particular of the 
> Portuguese Chapter and the Italian one. I am involved also in the 
> Eurodig and this year I attended my first IGF.
>
> I am also in the steering committee of MediaLaws. I am correspondent 
> for Portugal and Italy for IRIS the Audiovisual Journal of the 
> European Audiovisual Observatory of the Council of Europe. I am a 
> member of the Association Suisse de droit International and one of the 
> co-founding members of the ONG Hemesphere, focus in development and 
> cooperation through culture. I am co-founder of the association 
> IdƏaree that has the aim to study the idea of the modern identity 
> through the geographic space, Europe and the Member States, through 
> culture. I am activist as well with Unicef Brussels.
>
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/e8fceade/attachment.htm>

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Nov 20 00:54:53 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 03:54:53 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society role in Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net>
References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCwQaMe+Kh12Jwm_uzHUECkoBcUZ_gBQoJTDkTmKKfxhg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Dear All
>
> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be
> taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil
> meeting through the 1net structure....
>

Sala: This is contrary to what I have been hearing from various subscribers
and members of the IGC and even others within other civil society
organisations. My sensing is that there is desire to collaborate and
engage. This is obvious from the numbers that have subscribed to the
mailing list and also from corridor discussions and talks via email or
skpe. Please remember that in Bali, we did not collectively agree that we
would not engage, it was supposed to be a strategy meeting. We can very
easily take a poll on the matter-


> And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil society that
> this should not be allowed, and we should have a direct liason. (Civil
> society outside the active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are
> we know willing to come out of our paralysis?
>

 Sala:
Firstly apologies for the delayed response, have been busy catching up with
work and emails and conference matters as there are some substantive public
policy issues affecting global public interest that demanded our immediate
attention.

One of the reasons why we were initially cautious about INET was because it
was not clarified to us at the time what INET was supposed to be which
caused most of us if not all to be suspicious about the process and allude
"power grabs". From discussions with some of the I Star group, not ICANN, I
was told that this was simply designed to be a blanket slate where
stakeholders and different constituencies can come to the table and draft
and design the Agenda and ensure that they field their representatives to
the table. We all come as equals to the table.

*Reasons Why We should Engage with I star group and come to the Table at I
Net*

Firstly, kindly note that the I NET is like an open virtual forum and it is
not owned by any one single group or constituency. Secondly, in a world
where we know that enhanced cooperation is critical in development and
addressing concerns affectng global interest, it makes sense to work
towards building bridges. We need to work towards engaging with other
constituencies in an intelligent and rational manner. To not engage is to
effectively render our voice meaningless. Advoacy has to be strategic and
directed and we need to come alongside other communities and add our
diversity and voices.

The Government of Brazil would be innundated with hundreds of voices if
there were no effective mechanism to channel the voices to her in the
course of organising a Global Conference. To this end, I would strongly
recommend that we engage. There are some of you who sit on the Working
Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) so enhanced cooperation should be
practised. We must reach beyond ourselves, find strength in our values and
character and engage. We do not need to be abrasive to be good advocates.
To reach out, we must first engender the confidence in those that we are
reaching out to. This does not mean compromising our values and principles
but rather it means that we need to build strong relationships where we can
encourage dialogue. I have absolute faith that when we come to the table in
INET our voices will be heard.

Right now we do not have much time as Brazil draws nigh and we need to
accelerate our preparations. As per my previous update a few hours ago
(yesterday as it is now 2:40am as I write this to you), civil society
organisations heads are discussing mechanisms for selection of civil
society representatives, noting that we all have diverse selection
processes with the IGC using NomComs etc. You can respond to my other email
if you have ideas about processes and mechanisms. For now, please

Values command the respect of our colleagues as engagement and negotiations
will play out not just in 2014 but beyond. Because of this, we should not
isolate ourselves but dialogue and engage. My advice would be to come to
the table in the I star engagement and lend our voice as civil society. To
lend our voices as civil society, we need to engage with all these
stakeholders. The key thing here is to ENGAGE. There will be certain
positions that we will need our alliances to agree on, in terms of key
positions on things like the preservation of an open and free internet as
mandated by our Charter.

>
> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent
> liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons
> directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just
> forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have
> to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if
> some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a
> quick text suggestion...
>
> Sala: The letter that is being prepared names the liaisons that we will
> have on the ground in Brazil. The Government of Brazil will be working with
> diverse stakeholders and it has to come through a mechanism which happens
> to be the INET. The INET is not owned by any of the I*. It was designed to
> bring everyone as equals where all constituencies can organise themselves
> and the way forward. The only thing I had an issue with was that the
> mechanisms for participating were recently prepared and sent to us. It is
> unclear at this stage, whether that was designed by the Brazil Government
> although I have been informed that it was designed by the Brazil
> Government. There is nothing stopping us from commenting on the structure
> of the mechanism but we should do so not with the intention to subvert the
> round table allowing for diverse constituencies to come to the table (there
> is a world bigger than civil society) as the pressing deadline will demand
> extensive coordination in streaming things and preparing for San Paulo.
>
> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to
> note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the
> official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of
> Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion.  We
> have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the
> Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may
> be set up.
>
>
>
> ....
> ......
>
> ......
> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons
>
> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal
> presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed
> multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route
> our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>
> Signed
>
>
> (ends)
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/89e07410/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 20 02:08:01 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:38:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society role in Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiCwQaMe+Kh12Jwm_uzHUECkoBcUZ_gBQoJTDkTmKKfxhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <CAJwbTiCwQaMe+Kh12Jwm_uzHUECkoBcUZ_gBQoJTDkTmKKfxhg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528C5FD1.8050900@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 20 November 2013 11:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Dear All
>
>     There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may
>     just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov
>     participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure....
>
> Sala: This is contrary to what I have been hearing from various 
> subscribers and members of the IGC and even others within other civil 
> society organisations. My sensing is that there is desire to 
> collaborate and engage. This is obvious from the numbers that have 
> subscribed to the mailing list and also from corridor discussions and 
> talks via email or skpe. Please remember that in Bali, we did not 
> collectively agree that we would not engage, it was supposed to be a 
> strategy meeting. We can very easily take a poll on the matter-

We need to seriously separate two different issues

1. Having CS representation for a role in Brazil meeting being 
channelled/ fronted by 1net
2. Having a lateral engagement with 1net, for a purpose of dialogue and 
so on

My response to 1 above is *no* and to 2 above is *yes*.

So please indicate responses to 1 and 2 separately.... We have kept up 
this confusion for more than a month now. When at Bali i asked for an 
'independent' CS liason to Brazil meeting, Wolfgang propositioned, in my 
view, very much out of context, that 'independent' is not good and we 
should work together. Such a confusion is carrying on, effectively 
paralysing us, and making us completely ineffective.

Sala, please mention your response to 1 and 2 above separately... I 
gather from your emails below that your response to both is yes... If 
so, that is a clear view. Mine is as indicated above... And my 
impression from emails and f2f discussions among IGC and BB members has 
been that while they are fine to do 2 above the overwhelming response to 
1 above is negative.... But happy for people to state their views now... 
And as you suggest, yes we can have a poll... but seperately on 1 and 2...

parminder


>     And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil
>     society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a
>     direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even
>     more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of
>     our paralysis?
>
>  Sala:
> Firstly apologies for the delayed response, have been busy catching up 
> with work and emails and conference matters as there are some 
> substantive public policy issues affecting global public interest that 
> demanded our immediate attention.
> One of the reasons why we were initially cautious about INET was 
> because it was not clarified to us at the time what INET was supposed 
> to be which caused most of us if not all to be suspicious about the 
> process and allude "power grabs". From discussions with some of the I 
> Star group, not ICANN, I was told that this was simply designed to be 
> a blanket slate where stakeholders and different constituencies can 
> come to the table and draft and design the Agenda and ensure that they 
> field their representatives to the table. We all come as equals to the 
> table.
> *Reasons Why We should Engage with I star group and come to the Table 
> at I Net*
> Firstly, kindly note that the I NET is like an open virtual forum and 
> it is not owned by any one single group or constituency. Secondly, in 
> a world where we know that enhanced cooperation is critical in 
> development and addressing concerns affectng global interest, it makes 
> sense to work towards building bridges. We need to work towards 
> engaging with other constituencies in an intelligent and rational 
> manner. To not engage is to effectively render our voice meaningless. 
> Advoacy has to be strategic and directed and we need to come alongside 
> other communities and add our diversity and voices.
> The Government of Brazil would be innundated with hundreds of voices 
> if there were no effective mechanism to channel the voices to her in 
> the course of organising a Global Conference. To this end, I would 
> strongly recommend that we engage. There are some of you who sit on 
> the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) so enhanced 
> cooperation should be practised. We must reach beyond ourselves, find 
> strength in our values and character and engage. We do not need to be 
> abrasive to be good advocates. To reach out, we must first engender 
> the confidence in those that we are reaching out to. This does not 
> mean compromising our values and principles but rather it means that 
> we need to build strong relationships where we can encourage dialogue. 
> I have absolute faith that when we come to the table in INET our 
> voices will be heard.
> Right now we do not have much time as Brazil draws nigh and we need to 
> accelerate our preparations. As per my previous update a few hours ago 
> (yesterday as it is now 2:40am as I write this to you), civil society 
> organisations heads are discussing mechanisms for selection of civil 
> society representatives, noting that we all have diverse selection 
> processes with the IGC using NomComs etc. You can respond to my other 
> email if you have ideas about processes and mechanisms. For now, please
> Values command the respect of our colleagues as engagement and 
> negotiations will play out not just in 2014 but beyond. Because of 
> this, we should not isolate ourselves but dialogue and engage. My 
> advice would be to come to the table in the I star engagement and lend 
> our voice as civil society. To lend our voices as civil society, we 
> need to engage with all these stakeholders. The key thing here is to 
> ENGAGE. There will be certain positions that we will need our 
> alliances to agree on, in terms of key positions on things like the 
> preservation of an open and free internet as mandated by our Charter.
>
>
>     Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and
>     independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently
>     present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the
>     1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we
>     have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that
>     liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people
>     insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick
>     text suggestion...
>
>     Sala: The letter that is being prepared names the liaisons that we
>     will have on the ground in Brazil. The Government of Brazil will
>     be working with diverse stakeholders and it has to come through a
>     mechanism which happens to be the INET. The INET is not owned by
>     any of the I*. It was designed to bring everyone as equals where
>     all constituencies can organise themselves and the way forward.
>     The only thing I had an issue with was that the mechanisms for
>     participating were recently prepared and sent to us. It is unclear
>     at this stage, whether that was designed by the Brazil Government
>     although I have been informed that it was designed by the Brazil
>     Government. There is nothing stopping us from commenting on the
>     structure of the mechanism but we should do so not with the
>     intention to subvert the round table allowing for diverse
>     constituencies to come to the table (there is a world bigger than
>     civil society) as the pressing deadline will demand extensive
>     coordination in streaming things and preparing for San Paulo.
>
>         We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are
>         pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of
>         a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) .
>         We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this
>         meeting and take it to a successful conclusion.  We have
>         chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to
>         the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering
>         committee that may be set up.
>
>         ....
>         ......
>
>         ......
>         ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons
>
>         Please include our above representatives in all meetings,
>         formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place
>         regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future
>         of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the
>         organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>
>         Signed
>
>
>     (ends)
>
>     parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/ce5d0084/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 20 02:15:43 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:15:43 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>

On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont see that in place.

We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to the MAG.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/5dec162d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/5dec162d/attachment.sig>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Nov 20 02:57:52 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:27:52 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDx050cosh-bhNNSeV-qd=Ny1Qb4f_4e5ykqFswfnjeYA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder and all,

I'd like to add to Jeremy's message that this is not about process
entrenchment - it is about getting something on the rails. As Best Bits is
an action-oriented network, it makes sense for us to nominate people who
support, nurture and provide feedback back into that work. At least as far
as I am concerned, trying this out this year immediately made clear some of
the things that will possibly need to be done differently in the future.
For example, we might want to add a criterion that candidates should have
been involved in Best Bits in some capacity or the other (even just by
contributing on email lists), so that the reasons why Best Bits
specifically should support their candidature is more evident upfront.

In fact, if supporting, nurturing and feeding back into Best Bits work is a
crucial criterion to be nominated with the support from Best Bits, I think
we should definitely add the name of Bill Drake to the above list, and
support his renewal. Not only is Bill always ready to share information
about the MAG and IGF (and many other fora he is involved in) online, he
also is always ready to meet, update and provide info for those who travel
to Geneva personally and don't know the ins and outs of processes there
themselves. For these reasons, I would like to propose that we add his name
to the above list as well.

Best,
Anja


On 20 November 2013 12:45, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG
> nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership,
> and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a
> clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And
> I dont see that in place.
>
>
> We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
> nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and
> forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your
> objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and
> since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.
>  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the
> letter that goes to the MAG.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/fb7dab7e/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 20 03:29:36 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:59:36 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 20 November 2013 12:45 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG 
>> nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's 
>> membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which 
>> should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate 
>> process around it. And I dont see that in place.
>
> We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the 
> nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, 
> and forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.

No one on the 'main list' is going to say, no,  this person selected by 
steering committee is not right, and such.... we all know that. 
Therefore the process is of de facto selection by steering 
committee..Reference to the main list becomes just a fig leaf. BTW, if 
it is indeed only a recommendation to the main list, what is the process 
of actual selection by the main list - since if steering committee only 
makes recs, then the actual selection is made by the main list.... And 
you say below that there are no members of Bestbits (BB) ! All this is 
highly contradictory, which can set the scene for some people to do as 
they wish. Not that I am accusing that is already the situation.

As to the point that steering committee having just forwarded all names 
(bec this time there were only that many names).... a precedent of 
nominee/ rep selection by steering committee is being set up, and it 
will be used then to institutionalise the process... This method of 
building the BB coalitions structures is not acceptable to me.... Such 
important processes have to accepted not by default - by no- one -said- 
anything-to-the-contrary logic - but by express consent of an 
overwhelming majority of members. That is a 'best practice' for civil 
society coalitions the world over, and BB cannot use the expedient of 
just calling itself a 'platform' and not a coalition, and thus  avoiding 
legitimate processes.... While at the same time it seeks to take up so 
many 'powers' for itself, which prima facie are very unlike 'platform' 
nature of any structure.... These are glaring contradictions that must 
be resolved, collectively by all BB members.... If separate working 
group lists can be made to address substantive issues why cant such a 
group also be set up to finalise processes and structures for BB...


> Although your objection was noted, most others were comfortable with 
> this process

I am not sure. I want to expressly hear them.... Silences cannot be 
taken as assent for such serious matters, including deciding the role 
and powers of steering committee - which include rep selections. To me, 
sorry to say, it sounds as a self serving process or rather a non-process.

> and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to 
> go ahead.

So, we really have no membership! There are no BB members! There is just 
a steering committee of BB, right. That is BB. Nothing else. Is this the 
status... We at ITfC need to know bec we were one of the founding members.

No, this form and structure of BB is not adequately discussed and 
settled.... Some people just proposed it, basically existing steering 
committee members, and nothing happened after that.... This situation 
cannot be taken as having settled the matter in the way steering 
committee has decided it will be...

Lastly, why cant these names just be sent to IGC nomcom process? IT is a 
much more clearly institutionalised as well as well set out process, 
with transparency and accountability.

And unlike what was claimed earlier, by you I think, IGC nomcom has 
always been mandated to collect and forward names from a broader civil 
society space and *not* just IGC, and it has done so in the past... In 
fact I nominated one name to the process who I am not sure is on the IGc 
list.

Parminder


>  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in 
> the letter that goes to the MAG.
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/d066138a/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 20 03:47:43 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:47:43 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org>

On 20 Nov 2013, at 4:29 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> If separate working group lists can be made to address substantive issues why cant such a group also be set up to finalise processes and structures for BB...

Sure, that's a good idea.  Let's do that.  It was meant that this discussion and revision to the processes would be ongoing on the wiki, but that has been hampered by website issues, which I'm still working on.  In the meantime until the wiki is more usable, we could as easily create another working group for revision to the processes.  Whoever is interested to be on such a working group, in addition to the interim steering committee members, please let me know and we can set that up.

Obviously we will not place Best Bits into stasis in the meantime, at such a critical juncture.  We have been listening but there has not been a chorus of approval for your process concerns, and on the contrary many people have expressed the desire for us to continue in a loosely institutionalised manner.  So we will continue to iterate and improve, but we will not be radically changing course.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/6e542afe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/6e542afe/attachment.sig>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Nov  1 16:31:35 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:31:35 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil-Germany Motion to GA on Privacy
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAf+E=RsVba+34m2gD+mBOGGsROzLHDnUq=E2ck2BaJpTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com>
	<CAK-FJAf+E=RsVba+34m2gD+mBOGGsROzLHDnUq=E2ck2BaJpTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfFPHGmAbe76DJb=-PV_Oyot8pHROX7=tn-eqcKnO93sw@mail.gmail.com>

found it in the Brazil MRE page -
http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/notas-a-imprensa/brasil-e-alemanha-apresentam-a-assembleia-geral-da-onu-projeto-de-resolucao-sobre-o-direito-a-privacidade-na-era-digital


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com
> wrote:

> have the original link? pls
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:26 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-di
>> gital-age<http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-digital-age>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/caca6148/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 20 04:03:04 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:33:04 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 20 November 2013 02:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 4:29 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> If separate working group lists can be made to address substantive 
>> issues why cant such a group also be set up to finalise processes and 
>> structures for BB...
>
> Sure, that's a good idea.  Let's do that.  It was meant that this 
> discussion and revision to the processes would be ongoing on the wiki, 
> but that has been hampered by website issues, which I'm still working 
> on.  In the meantime until the wiki is more usable, we could as easily 
> create another working group for revision to the processes.  Whoever 
> is interested to be on such a working group, in addition to the 
> interim steering committee members, please let me know and we can set 
> that up.
>
> Obviously we will not place Best Bits into stasis in the meantime, at 
> such a critical juncture.

I see absolutely no harm made to our substantive work, that is needed at 
this critical juncture, by referring the names we have to IGC process of 
MAG nominee selection rather than do it through an unapproved process by 
BB steering committee. This is taking up of unauthorised powers by the 
steering committee , and I would  not be a party to it.

>  We have been listening but there has not been a chorus of approval 
> for your process concerns,

Neither a chorus of support for steering committee doing the selections 
ot reps, nominees etc on behalf of BB membership... As said it has to be 
express and not implied approval of the membership of BB...


> and on the contrary many people have expressed the desire for us to 
> continue in a loosely institutionalised manner.

Which means nothing per any kind of assent by BB membership (a concept 
that you have conveniently evaporated) to processes of nominee/ rep 
selection being done by steering commitee of BB . Are you going to take 
the self decided mandate to 'keep working in loosely institutionalised 
process' to do whatever hits your or steering committee's fancy? That 
would be such a travesty!

>  So we will continue to iterate and improve, but we will not be 
> radically changing course.

Meaning, you are going ahead with the process of selection of MAG 
nominees by the steering committee, are you?

parminder


>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/8b97415b/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed Nov 20 05:05:02 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:05:02 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>

Hi

Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list members then expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.  

By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been on it, etc?

It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.

Thanks

Bill

On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont see that in place.
> 
> We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to the MAG.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/6ef3cd26/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Wed Nov 20 05:10:58 2013
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:10:58 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
	<02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Colleagues,

Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my opinion
the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really put in a
lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in the
overall continuity of all current CS MAG members

Regards

Poncelet




On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate
> clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline
> for submission, and when was the period in which list members then
> expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are
> a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are
> awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed
> all this.
>
> By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members,
> do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support
> the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed,
> irrespective of the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been
> been on it, etc?
>
> It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG
> nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership,
> and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a
> clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And
> I dont see that in place.
>
>
> We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
> nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and
> forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your
> objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and
> since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.
>  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the
> letter that goes to the MAG.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>www.itag.gm
<http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/1e96398a/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Nov 20 05:16:01 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:16:01 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
	<02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>
 <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040CB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Is there a term limit for service on the MAG?  Most organisations I know regard it as essential to have a turnover of membership after a suitable period of time.

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji
Sent: 20 November 2013 10:11
To: William Drake
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt Best Bits; Parminder Singh
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

Hello Colleagues,
Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
Regards
Poncelet


On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
Hi

Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list members then expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.

By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work they've put in, how long they've been been on it, etc?

It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.

Thanks

Bill
On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:


On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:


As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont see that in place.

We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to the MAG.

--

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>


Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone


@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.
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm>
www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org>
www.aficta.org<http://www.aficta.org>
www.itag.gm<http://www.itag.gm>
www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org>
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/345ad51d/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 20 05:17:24 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:17:24 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org>

(Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit any mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates to those who will fill slots that will be open anyway. If we clarify that we support the continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop the specific candidates mentioned, this may help?

-- 
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}'
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.



> On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> 
> Hello Colleagues,
> 
> Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
> 
> Regards
> 
> Poncelet
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list members then expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.  
>> 
>> By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been on it, etc?
>> 
>> It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont see that in place.
>>> 
>>> We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to the MAG.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>> 
>>> 
>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>> 
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>> 
>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm
> www.waigf.org
> www.aficta.org
> www.itag.gm
> www.npoc.org
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/70d267d2/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 20 05:22:44 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:22:44 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040CB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040CB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <ED9AE228-401E-483B-89D9-689AF8C26134@ciroap.org>

There should be, but no. 1/3 are meant to retire each year which would imply a 3 year term limit. In reality some members have never been rotated off. This is a deficiency of the "black box" selection system which the MAG refuses to change. 

-- 
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}'
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.



> On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:16 pm, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> 
> Is there a term limit for service on the MAG?  Most organisations I know regard it as essential to have a turnover of membership after a suitable period of time.
>  
> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Executive Director
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>  
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji
> Sent: 20 November 2013 10:11
> To: William Drake
> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt Best Bits; Parminder Singh
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
>  
> Hello Colleagues,
> 
> Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
> 
> Regards
> 
> Poncelet
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi
>  
> Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list members then expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.  
>  
> By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been on it, etc?
>  
> It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Bill
> 
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont see that in place.
>  
> We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to the MAG.
>  
> -- 
> 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
> 
>  
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
>  
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>  
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm
> www.waigf.org
> www.aficta.org
> www.itag.gm
> www.npoc.org
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/b93f396d/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Nov 20 05:36:16 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:36:16 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <ED9AE228-401E-483B-89D9-689AF8C26134@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
 <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
 <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
 <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>
 <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040CB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <ED9AE228-401E-483B-89D9-689AF8C26134@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040DA@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Thanks Jeremy – that’s what I thought.

I’m not getting involved in the conversation about who is nominated and how, as it is a crowded field.

I would simply ask anyone that BB nominates/supports/passes on,  tells the list what they think of this secretive unaccountable black box in the MAG and what they would like to do about it.     If we believe in multi-stakeholder processes and the IGF – we should do something about it

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: 20 November 2013 10:23
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: Poncelet Ileleji; William Drake; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt Best Bits; Parminder Singh
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

There should be, but no. 1/3 are meant to retire each year which would imply a 3 year term limit. In reality some members have never been rotated off. This is a deficiency of the "black box" selection system which the MAG refuses to change.

--
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<http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:16 pm, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
Is there a term limit for service on the MAG?  Most organisations I know regard it as essential to have a turnover of membership after a suitable period of time.

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji
Sent: 20 November 2013 10:11
To: William Drake
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>&gt Best Bits; Parminder Singh
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

Hello Colleagues,
Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
Regards
Poncelet


On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
Hi

Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list members then expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.

By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been on it, etc?

It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.

Thanks

Bill
On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:



On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:



As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont see that in place.

We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to the MAG.

--

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>


Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone


@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.
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm>
www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org>
www.aficta.org<http://www.aficta.org>
www.itag.gm<http://www.itag.gm>
www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org>
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/375d2c3e/attachment.htm>

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Wed Nov 20 05:38:34 2013
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:38:34 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040DA@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
	<02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>
	<CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040CB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<ED9AE228-401E-483B-89D9-689AF8C26134@ciroap.org>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040DA@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <CAPqXoj+dTknTjoqDzr0JVBGECcC2Lg8vNjA1f1ar=ncJjHDmXQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1


2013/11/20 Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>

> Thanks Jeremy - that's what I thought.
>
>
>
> I'm not getting involved in the conversation about who is nominated and
> how, as it is a crowded field.
>
>
>
> I would simply ask *anyone* that BB nominates/supports/passes on,  tells
> the list what they think of this secretive unaccountable black box in the
> MAG and what they would like to do about it.     If we believe in
> multi-stakeholder processes and the IGF - we should do something about it
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org]
> *Sent:* 20 November 2013 10:23
> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt
> *Cc:* Poncelet Ileleji; William Drake; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
> Best Bits; Parminder Singh
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval -
> URGENT
>
>
>
> There should be, but no. 1/3 are meant to retire each year which would
> imply a 3 year term limit. In reality some members have never been rotated
> off. This is a deficiency of the "black box" selection system which the MAG
> refuses to change.
>
> --
>
> 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}'
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:16 pm, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> wrote:
>
> Is there a term limit for service on the MAG?  Most organisations I know
> regard it as essential to have a turnover of membership after a suitable
> period of time.
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [
> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>]
> *On Behalf Of *Poncelet Ileleji
> *Sent:* 20 November 2013 10:11
> *To:* William Drake
> *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt Best Bits; Parminder
> Singh
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval -
> URGENT
>
>
>
> Hello Colleagues,
>
> Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my
> opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really
> put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in
> the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
>
> Regards
>
> Poncelet
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate
> clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline
> for submission, and when was the period in which list members then
> expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are
> a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are
> awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed
> all this.
>
>
>
> By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members,
> do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support
> the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed,
> irrespective of the time and work they've put in, how long they've been
> been on it, etc?
>
>
>
> It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG
> nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership,
> and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a
> clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And
> I dont see that in place.
>
>
>
> We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
> nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and
> forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your
> objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and
> since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.
>  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the
> letter that goes to the MAG.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
>
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
>
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org>www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>www.itag.gm
> <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>www.diplointernetgovernance.org
> <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance
(GIG) Ohu
 Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
www.collaboratory.de *
Newsletter<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>
 * Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> * Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> *
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/f1348aac/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Nov 20 05:45:30 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:45:30 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040DA@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040CB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <ED9AE228-401E-483B-89D9-689AF8C26134@ciroap.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040DA@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <528C92CA.8060207@cdt.org>

Andrew completely agree.  Civil society inside and outside the MAG 
should push for full transparency and 3 year term limits, and these 
should be added to the (growing) list of things that need to change 
before IGF 2014.

On 20/11/2013 10:36, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Thanks Jeremy – that’s what I thought.
>
> I’m not getting involved in the conversation about who is nominated 
> and how, as it is a crowded field.
>
> I would simply ask _anyone_ that BB nominates/supports/passes on, 
>  tells the list what they think of this secretive unaccountable black 
> box in the MAG and what they would like to do about it.     If we 
> believe in multi-stakeholder processes and the IGF – we should do 
> something about it
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org*
>
> *From:*Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org]
> *Sent:* 20 November 2013 10:23
> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt
> *Cc:* Poncelet Ileleji; William Drake; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt 
> Best Bits; Parminder Singh
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval 
> - URGENT
>
> There should be, but no. 1/3 are meant to retire each year which would 
> imply a 3 year term limit. In reality some members have never been 
> rotated off. This is a deficiency of the "black box" selection system 
> which the MAG refuses to change.
>
> -- 
>
> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:16 pm, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
>
>     Is there a term limit for service on the MAG?  Most organisations
>     I know regard it as essential to have a turnover of membership
>     after a suitable period of time.
>
>     *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
>     Executive Director
>
>     Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
>     T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>     andrewpuddephatt
>     *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>     *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>     [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of
>     *Poncelet Ileleji
>     *Sent:* 20 November 2013 10:11
>     *To:* William Drake
>     *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>&gt Best Bits; Parminder Singh
>     *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your
>     approval - URGENT
>
>     Hello Colleagues,
>
>     Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my
>     opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and
>     have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and
>     strongly belief in the overall continuity of all current CS MAG
>     members
>
>     Regards
>
>     Poncelet
>
>     On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
>     <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>
>     Hi
>
>     Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate
>     clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the
>     deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list
>     members then expressed views either way before you decided to go
>     ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with
>     Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of
>     communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.
>
>     By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG
>     members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that
>     you do not support the continued participation of all the current
>     CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work
>     they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been on it, etc?
>
>     It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bill
>
>     On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
>     <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>     On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>     As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG
>     nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's
>     membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues
>     which should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus
>     legitimate process around it. And I dont see that in place.
>
>     We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
>     nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate
>     them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a
>     recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others
>     were comfortable with this process and since we do not have voting
>     or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If appropriate
>     your objection could probably be noted in some way in the letter
>     that goes to the MAG.
>
>     -- 
>
>     *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>
>
>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>     knowledge hub
>     |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
>     @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.
>
>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>     Coordinator
>     The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>     MDI Road Kanifing South
>     P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>     The Gambia, West Africa
>     Tel: (220) 4370240
>     Fax:(220) 4390793
>     Cell:(220) 9912508
>     Skype: pons_utd
>     /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>     www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>     www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>
>     www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>     http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>     www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>     <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>
>     *
>
>
>     */
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/16396113/attachment.htm>

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 20 05:52:10 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:52:10 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528C92CA.8060207@cdt.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
	<02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>
	<CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040CB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<ED9AE228-401E-483B-89D9-689AF8C26134@ciroap.org>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040DA@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528C92CA.8060207@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhdHkZtFPK6rYyEFshMT==2g_ZZ_j61mLJNJG+xcTHCgQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you so much for including me to the list, however as discussed here I
am more than happy to be excluded here for MAG with new names.

I mean it's my second year and am willing to stay one more IGF, but not
longer for the rotation rule.

I also agree that there should be transparency and accountability for MAG
selection.

Best

Izumi

2013年11月20日水曜日 matthew shears mshears at cdt.org:

>  Andrew completely agree.  Civil society inside and outside the MAG should
> push for full transparency and 3 year term limits, and these should be
> added to the (growing) list of things that need to change before IGF 2014.
>
> On 20/11/2013 10:36, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
>  Thanks Jeremy - that’s what I thought.
>
>
>
> I’m not getting involved in the conversation about who is nominated and
> how, as it is a crowded field.
>
>
>
> I would simply ask *anyone* that BB nominates/supports/passes on,  tells
> the list what they think of this secretive unaccountable black box in the
> MAG and what they would like to do about it.     If we believe in
> multi-stakeholder processes and the IGF - we should do something about it
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org]
> *Sent:* 20 November 2013 10:23
> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt
> *Cc:* Poncelet Ileleji; William Drake; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gtBest Bits; Parminder Singh
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval -
> URGENT
>
>
>
> There should be, but no. 1/3 are meant to retire each year which would
> imply a 3 year term limit. In reality some members have never been rotated
> off. This is a deficiency o
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'mshears at cdt.org');>
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
>
>

-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/0356e2e7/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Fri Nov  1 17:14:30 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:14:30 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil-Germany Motion to GA on Privacy
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfFPHGmAbe76DJb=-PV_Oyot8pHROX7=tn-eqcKnO93sw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com> <CAK-FJAf+E=RsVba+34m2gD+mBOGGsROzLHDnUq=E2ck2BaJpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAfFPHGmAbe76DJb=-PV_Oyot8pHROX7=tn-eqcKnO93sw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQa4GBF=K9J2BaXgm8AR+PQhEJ5D6-TKfSJ5Dp3StRo5AA@mail.gmail.com>

Here's a blog post we on the draft resolution:

https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/11/01/brazil-germany-introduce-resolution-on-the-right-to-privacy-in-the-digital-

The official link for the draft resolution doesn't seem to be posted yet,
but here's a more official looking version (in English):
http://www.innercitypress.com/bzgerm1privacy110113.pdf

Best,
Deborah


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com
> wrote:

> found it in the Brazil MRE page -
> http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/notas-a-imprensa/brasil-e-alemanha-apresentam-a-assembleia-geral-da-onu-projeto-de-resolucao-sobre-o-direito-a-privacidade-na-era-digital
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> have the original link? pls
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:26 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-di
>>> gital-age<http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-digital-age>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
>  //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org
rightscon.org

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/60651a3a/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 20 06:40:37 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:40:37 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <27C351F3-1F6F-45F6-9607-66F351B0CB84@ciroap.org>

This will be my last contribution to this thread because I am about to board a flight.

> I see absolutely no harm made to our substantive work, that is needed at this critical juncture, by referring the names we have to IGC process of MAG nominee selection rather than do it through an unapproved process by BB steering committee. This is taking up of unauthorised powers by the steering committee , and I would  not be a party to it.

Since people can self nominate directly to the IGF Secretariat, this process is essentially no different, other than the network has the opportunity to support those nominations, and thereby give them more weight, through an open, rough consensus process. Some people do not want to use the IGC process directly for various reasons.  (One of those reasons is that they feel that the IGC is too hostile because of unnecessarily heated attacks that take place there.  Everyone should be mindful of the tone of the emails they send to the Best Bits list, to avoid us falling into the same trap.)

> Neither a chorus of support for steering committee doing the selections ot reps, nominees etc on behalf of BB membership... As said it has to be express and not implied approval of the membership of BB...

As I explained in my last email, the steering committee did not select anyone.  We passed along some hopefully helpful information that could be used to inform the rough consensus process by which the network could choose to support some or all of the self-nominations that we received.  The process is lighter weight than the IGC's process, and deliberately so.  But from the outset the process was presented as a trial, which we could then later improve.  Anja has already suggested a specific way this process could be improved next time, and there will be other improvements to make too.

> Meaning, you are going ahead with the process of selection of MAG nominees by the steering committee, are you? 

Not by the steering committee, no - as explained above.  But both the nominees who put their names forward, and others, would like to complete this process, as imperfect as it may be, so that those who are not part of the IGC can have another network publicly support their candidacy for the MAG.  As mentioned above, due to travel this is my last contribution to this thread and I request that you take up any further issues with me or one of the other steering committee members directly and off-list.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/fd54bf56/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/fd54bf56/attachment.sig>

From kichango at gmail.com  Wed Nov 20 07:09:36 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:09:36 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
	<528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net>
	<795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org>
	<528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8Ga8fFf_91-B9Y5=Ww72=1cZCSHNAP+S9=r9Uf-0-9dA@mail.gmail.com>

First, I wish to clarify my understanding of BB.

Best Bits (BB) = (interim) Steering Committee (iSC) + Discussion List (DL)

There is no decision-making mechanism other than what the iSC
self-appointed members agree on among themselves.
Any decision that comes out of BB is actually the decision of
self-appointed few that make up the iSC.
There's no membership (other than the iSC membership.) Also referred to as
the main list, the DL is just that, a list for people to discuss which may
be tapped into for drafting or editing statements plus any other business
the iSC decide it is okay to handle outside its closed circle.

So far, I have just described the structure at BB, as reflected through
what has transpired so far. So if any of the above is inaccurate, please
correct me.

All people (but one that I'm not sure of) being nominated here are on the
IGC list. Some of them are already nominated there, too (the others could
have been, if they wanted to.) If you recognize that BB as a whole doesn't
yet have a proper decision-making mechanism, then I suggest to ask IGC
NomCom to merge BB nominees to theirs (I think you Jeremy have suggested
earlier that this could be an option, and I would encourage for that as a
better interim solution.) That wouldn't put on hold any BB urgent
substantive business. The membership of the IGC NomCom is already known:
are there any nominee here who feel any member of the NomCom would be
hostile against them or their candidacy? If so, I think the issue should be
raised to IGC and addressed (if necessary by replacement... there was a
pool of 25 candidates for the NomCom.)

Doing otherwise would signal that BB (i.e. its iSC)  just don't want the
IGC NomCom to meddle in the list of BB nominees, even based on clearly
defined and tested processes and criteria. And that your main purpose not
doing that is to make sure whatever IGC NomCom decides, BB candidates will
make it to the UN "black box" anyway (as you refer to it, on which
designation I do not disagree)?

If that's the case, then I suggest forwarding BB slate directly to the IGF
Secretariat, with an explanation of the nomination process, procedures,
etc. (as you also suggested.) Because I am afraid adding BB slate to IGC's
and forwarding them together to the IGF Sec may be confusing and even
misleading (I mean what's the point forwarding them together if we wanted
so badly the two processes separated, despite the un-readiness of one of
them?) If you don't want IGC to interfere in BB nomination process, or to
have a say whatsoever on it, then I personally think it would be fair to
just forward BB nominees directly and separately, like other CS groupings
may be doing... following to the end the logic BB would have adopted.

Finally, just a last comment and cautionary note. If BB were to go on like
this (without clear membership and decision-making mechanism beyond the
iSC), I am afraid it won't take long for BB to be portrayed as a
self-serving group and to be (mis-) perceived by some people as a power
grab exercise (just as some of us may have (mis-) perceived the I* orgs to
engage in such lately.) Not only this is not better (in terms of
decision-making processes, openness/inclusiveness), it is not even close to
ICANN we like to criticize. We know and can do better.
Cheers,

mawaki



On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:03 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Wednesday 20 November 2013 02:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 4:29 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>  If separate working group lists can be made to address substantive
> issues why cant such a group also be set up to finalise processes and
> structures for BB...
>
>
>  Sure, that's a good idea.  Let's do that.  It was meant that this
> discussion and revision to the processes would be ongoing on the wiki, but
> that has been hampered by website issues, which I'm still working on.  In
> the meantime until the wiki is more usable, we could as easily create
> another working group for revision to the processes.  Whoever is interested
> to be on such a working group, in addition to the interim steering
> committee members, please let me know and we can set that up.
>
>  Obviously we will not place Best Bits into stasis in the meantime, at
> such a critical juncture.
>
>
> I see absolutely no harm made to our substantive work, that is needed at
> this critical juncture, by referring the names we have to IGC process of
> MAG nominee selection rather than do it through an unapproved process by BB
> steering committee. This is taking up of unauthorised powers by the
> steering committee , and I would  not be a party to it.
>
>   We have been listening but there has not been a chorus of approval for
> your process concerns,
>
>
> Neither a chorus of support for steering committee doing the selections ot
> reps, nominees etc on behalf of BB membership... As said it has to be
> express and not implied approval of the membership of BB...
>
>
>
>  and on the contrary many people have expressed the desire for us to
> continue in a loosely institutionalised manner.
>
>
> Which means nothing per any kind of assent by BB membership (a concept
> that you have conveniently evaporated) to processes of nominee/ rep
> selection being done by steering commitee of BB . Are you going to take the
> self decided mandate to 'keep working in loosely institutionalised process'
> to do whatever hits your or steering committee's fancy? That would be such
> a travesty!
>
>   So we will continue to iterate and improve, but we will not be
> radically changing course.
>
>
> Meaning, you are going ahead with the process of selection of MAG nominees
> by the steering committee, are you?
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>   --
>
>
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/1d77d91e/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Nov 20 07:24:42 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:24:42 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <27C351F3-1F6F-45F6-9607-66F351B0CB84@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
	<528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net>
	<795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org>
	<528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net>
	<27C351F3-1F6F-45F6-9607-66F351B0CB84@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20131120132442.6e0e732f@quill>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> Not by the steering committee, no - as explained above.  But both the
> nominees who put their names forward, and others, would like to
> complete this process, as imperfect as it may be, so that those who
> are not part of the IGC can have another network publicly support
> their candidacy for the MAG.

Actually I see no reason why people "who are not part of the IGC"
couldn't be nominated through the IGC's NomCom, provided they fulfill
the criteria about the relationship to civil society networks by means
of engagement in other civil society networks.

I'll forward the pertinent message about criteria and the deadline
(which hasn't expired yet, but will soon) in a minute.

Greetings,
Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/03036e74/attachment.sig>

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Nov 20 07:24:57 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:24:57 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Fw: [governance] MAG Nomcom Update - Criteria for
 Selection and Call for Candidate Information
Message-ID: <20131120132457.3dc315e2@quill>



Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:

Datum: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:14:56 +1100
Von: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
An: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Betreff: Re: [governance] MAG Nomcom Update - Criteria for Selection
and Call for Candidate Information


as a follow up to this – following from previous discussion on this
subject, and approaches by some current MAG members seeking
re-endorsement, the MAG will also be looking at endorsement of
appropriate current MAG civil society members, in addition to
suggesting new nominees. To this end all current civil society reps on
MAG, in addition to those who have already put their names forward,
have been contacted and invited to make submissions.

Ian Peter
(non voting nomcom chair)

From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:44 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: [governance] MAG Nomcom Update - Criteria for Selection and
Call for Candidate Information

Hi everyone,

 The Nomcom for this years MAG selections is now underway on a very
 tight timeframe to select a slate of candidates.

 To date, we have the following nominees. If your name has been left
 out inadvertently, please let us know.To make sure that all
 prospective candidates have a chance to nominate, we will be extending
 the deadline for nominations until midnight UTC, Thursday November 21

1.    Asif Kabani

2.    Rudi Vansnick

3.    Sonigitu Ekpe

4.    Imran Ahmed Shah

5.    Fouad Bajwa

6.    Katim S Touray

7.    Stuart Hamilton

8.    Mawaki Chango

9.    Nnenna Nwakanma

10.  Mishi Choudary



 Please note that this is a list if of new candidates for MAG. The
 Nomcom is still determining how and if it will address questions of
 current membership and rotation and will advise in the near future.

We have also determined our selection criteria as follows (circulated
for the advice of IGC members and candidates)

1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC
2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including
the IGC 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote
participation 4. Knowledge of the UN system
5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and
perspectives held by civil society.
6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute
constructively to MAG deliberations 7. Willing and able to report and
update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress

We will also be taking into account the need for gender and geographic
balance.

All candidates (or their nominators) are invited to contact us at
nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org<nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org>;
giving information to support their nomination, and addressing the
selection criteria. As you may not be known to all members of the
Nomcom, we encourage all candidates to submit information in support of
their nomination. This information must be received by the deadline for
nominations, i.e. midnight UTC, Thursday November 21.



Nomcom members are:

Kerry Brown

Jefsey Morfin

Deirdre Williams

David Cake

Shaila Mistry



Ian Peter (non voting Chair)



nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org<nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org>;





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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/14cdcf64/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Wed Nov 20 08:04:02 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:04:02 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk>

Dear all

Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG from 
both current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated through Best 
Bits) be posted so that we can inform other networks of who is standing.

Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits nominee 
can be noted.

Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance 
structure need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB Steering 
as well as co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the need for clarity 
here too. But right at this moment as the list and candidates form, it 
would be good for anyone else considering standing for the MAG to know 
who is currently doing so. If a person is standing in two places could 
they nominate which one they are opting for too to save space and time?

Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing MAG 
members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing. Thank you 
all for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting work on this group.

best
MF


On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit any 
> mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates to those 
> who will fill slots that will be open anyway. If we clarify that we 
> support the continuation of the candidates who are eligible for 
> continuing, and drop the specific candidates mentioned, this may help?
>
> -- 
> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm 
> <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>
>> Hello Colleagues,
>>
>> Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my 
>> opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have 
>> really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and 
>> strongly belief in the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Poncelet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi
>>
>>     Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate
>>     clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the
>>     deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list
>>     members then expressed views either way before you decided to go
>>     ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with
>>     Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of
>>     communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.
>>
>>     By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG
>>     members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that
>>     you do not support the continued participation of all the current
>>     CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work
>>     they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been on it, etc?
>>
>>     It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bill
>>
>>     On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
>>     <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>     On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>     As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing
>>>>     MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering
>>>>     committee's membership, and so on.... These are serious.
>>>>     important issues which should have a clear, transparent,
>>>>     accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont
>>>>     see that in place.
>>>
>>>     We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected
>>>     the nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to
>>>     evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a
>>>     recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others
>>>     were comfortable with this process and since we do not have
>>>     voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If
>>>     appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way
>>>     in the letter that goes to the MAG.
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>
>>>     *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>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>>     knowledge hub
>>>     |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>
>>>
>>>     @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.
>>>
>>>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>> Skype: pons_utd
>> /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>> www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>
>> www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>> /www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Professor Marianne Franklin
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/7fd09bbe/attachment.htm>

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Wed Nov 20 09:08:07 2013
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:08:07 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
 <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
 <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwr7XmZx443nXVgBg64axX30VXMd0Jx89barwniUxEjQhw@mail.gmail.com>

There are nominees on BestBits that have also been nominated by IGC.

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya.
twitter.com/lordmwesh
google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh


On 20 November 2013 13:04, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>wrote:

>  Dear all
>
> Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG from
> both current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated through Best
> Bits) be posted so that we can inform other networks of who is standing.
>
> Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits nominee
> can be noted.
>
> Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance
> structure need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB Steering as
> well as co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the need for clarity here
> too. But right at this moment as the list and candidates form, it would be
> good for anyone else considering standing for the MAG to know who is
> currently doing so. If a person is standing in two places could they
> nominate which one they are opting for too to save space and time?
>
> Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing MAG
> members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing. Thank you all
> for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting work on this group.
>
> best
> MF
>
>
>
> On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit any
> mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates to those who
> will fill slots that will be open anyway. If we clarify that we support the
> continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop
> the specific candidates mentioned, this may help?
>
> --
> 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}'
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>
>    Hello Colleagues,
>
>  Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my
> opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really
> put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in
> the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
>
>  Regards
>
>  Poncelet
>
>
>
>
> On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>>  Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate
>> clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline
>> for submission, and when was the period in which list members then
>> expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are
>> a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are
>> awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed
>> all this.
>>
>>  By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG
>> members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not
>> support the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not
>> listed, irrespective of the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve
>> been been on it, etc?
>>
>>  It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>>
>>  Thanks
>>
>>  Bill
>>
>>  On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>
>>  On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>  As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG
>> nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership,
>> and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a
>> clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And
>> I dont see that in place.
>>
>>
>>  We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
>> nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and
>> forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your
>> objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and
>> since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.
>>  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the
>> letter that goes to the MAG.
>>
>>   --
>>
>>
>>
>> *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
>>
>>  Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>>  @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.
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
> www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org> www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>   ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> --
> Professor Marianne Franklin
> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> Dept. of Media & Communications
> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> @GloCommhttps://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> @netrights
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/321b46b6/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Nov 20 09:09:27 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:09:27 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
 <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
 <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please, allow me to raise a suggestion of the broader procedure:

I see this issue is getting complicated and sensitive and, particularly
reading Mawaki's email, I sense that there is some misunderstandings that
are particularly coming up from the fact that part of the people in the
list didn't attend BB meeting in Bali and deserve some clarification about
what happened there.

I know that everybody is really busy as since Bali the pace of events is
accelerated (and on my case particularly overwhelmed with Brazil meeting
issues), but I might be really useful if the steering make a joined effort
to manage to report back from the meeting, particularly about the session
on BB structure, so whoever that reads the wiki procedures will also have
this background info.

In the main while, let's try to trust each other a little bit... I'm pretty
totally comfortable to reaffirm that there is a lot of good will within the
steering, sometime we stumble in procedures, true, we are all testing
methods, its part of the task, but are also truly open for suggestions and
to implement changes. So, please, be sure concerns raised here are being
heard. Let's just not block important things to get done.

Therefore, I would suggest that we keep this thread to at least have the
list of people that BB would like to suggest, having in mind the issue
raised about indicating or not people that are already there. Deciding if
it is going through IGC or not would be the next (complicated) step.

all the best

joana



On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> wrote:

>  Dear all
>
> Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG from
> both current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated through Best
> Bits) be posted so that we can inform other networks of who is standing.
>
> Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits nominee
> can be noted.
>
> Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance
> structure need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB Steering as
> well as co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the need for clarity here
> too. But right at this moment as the list and candidates form, it would be
> good for anyone else considering standing for the MAG to know who is
> currently doing so. If a person is standing in two places could they
> nominate which one they are opting for too to save space and time?
>
> Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing MAG
> members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing. Thank you all
> for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting work on this group.
>
> best
> MF
>
>
>
> On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit any
> mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates to those who
> will fill slots that will be open anyway. If we clarify that we support the
> continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop
> the specific candidates mentioned, this may help?
>
> --
> 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}'
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>
>    Hello Colleagues,
>
>  Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my
> opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really
> put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in
> the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
>
>  Regards
>
>  Poncelet
>
>
>
>
> On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>>  Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate
>> clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline
>> for submission, and when was the period in which list members then
>> expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are
>> a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are
>> awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed
>> all this.
>>
>>  By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG
>> members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not
>> support the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not
>> listed, irrespective of the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve
>> been been on it, etc?
>>
>>  It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>>
>>  Thanks
>>
>>  Bill
>>
>>  On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>
>>  On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>  As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG
>> nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership,
>> and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a
>> clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And
>> I dont see that in place.
>>
>>
>>  We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
>> nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and
>> forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your
>> objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and
>> since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.
>>  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the
>> letter that goes to the MAG.
>>
>>   --
>>
>>
>>
>> *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
>>
>>  Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>>  @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.
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
> www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org> www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>   ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> --
> Professor Marianne Franklin
> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> Dept. of Media & Communications
> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> @GloCommhttps://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> @netrights
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/bdd8a287/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Nov 20 09:27:22 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:27:22 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk> <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528CC6CA.3050209@apc.org>

Dear all

It is one of those weeks for me. Sorry.. I have not been able to follow
this adequately. We are revising proposals, logframes and we are having
an APC council meeting.
I just wanted to add one piece of clarification.  The current CS MAG
members have all served for under 2 years, with one exception.  For
reasons that I still don't fully understand, the UN over-rotated CS
members on the MAG. This had a very dramatic impact on CS's influence in
the MAG.
 
Other stakeholder groups have not been as dramatically rotated, and
there are some individuals that have stayed on since the beginning. The
reason this happens I can share because I demanded to know and managed
to get clarification from New York. The reason is that tech and
business  re-nominate people every year, and they give the secretariat a
'full slate' that includes names to be retired, and names to be added.

Coming back to CS. Here is the current listing of people and the year
they joined. As you can see, they joined in May 2012 or later, with one
exception. This does not mean we don't need rotation. There are some
people that have not worked hard enough for reasons of being too busy,
unableI to come to meetings (funding is not always available), or just
lacking confidence. MAG work is not easy. In my view that means they
should not remain. But there are some people on this list who have
worked very hard, and who have managed to push through some difficult
and challenging debates and I do think that it is important to keep them.

*_Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/951-mag-bio-esterhuysen>:
_anriette at apc.org_ <mailto:anriette at apc.org>2012_
_*_Mr. Aizu, Izumi_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/942-mag-bio-aizu>*:
*_iza at anr.org_ <mailto:iza at anr.org>_       _2012_
_*_Mr. Guo, Liang_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/954-mag-bio-guo>:
_guoliang at gmail.com_ <mailto:guoliang at gmail.com>2012_
_*_Ms. Mangal, Anju_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/957-mag-bio-mangal>:
_anjum at spc.int_ <mailto:anjum at spc.int>2012_
_*_Ms. Cretu, Veronica: _*_veronica at cretu.md_
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/947-mag-bio-cretu>2012_
_*_Ms. Kelly, Sanja_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/955-mag-bio-kelly>:
_kelly at freedomhouse.org_ <mailto:kelly at freedomhouse.org>2012_
_*_Ms. Morenets, Yuliya_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/959-mag-bio-morenets->:
_contact at againstcybercrime.eu_ <mailto:contact at againstcybercrime.eu>2012_
_*_Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir: _*_vladar at diplomacy.edu**_
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/966-mag-bio-radunoic>_ _2012_
__Ms. Zachariah, Desiree: dazachariah at gmail.com _
<mailto:Ms.Zachariah,Desiree:dazachariah at gmail.com>2013_
_*_Mr. Drake, William_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/949-mag-bio-drake->:
_william.drake at uzh.ch_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>2012_
_*_Ms. Fell, Lucinda_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/952-mag-bio-fell>:
_lucinda at childnet.com_ <mailto:lucinda at childnet.com>2012_
_*_Ms. Cambronero, Fátima: _*_fatimacambronero at gmail.com_
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>2013*__*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>_
_*_Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/960-mag-bio-nalwoga>_lnalwoga at gmail.com_
<mailto:lnalwoga at gmail.com>2012_
_*_Ms. Okite, Judith_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/961-mag-bio-okite>_judyokite at gmail.com_
<mailto:judyokite at gmail.com>2012_
_*_Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai_*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/qusai>_qshatti at gmail.com_
<mailto:qshatti at gmail.com>2006
Subi Chaturvedi: 2013

Anriette - writing in my capacity as an individual who has served on the
MAG since May 2012 and who would like to remain for another term.


On 20/11/2013 16:09, Joana Varon wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please, allow me to raise a suggestion of the broader procedure:
>
> I see this issue is getting complicated and sensitive and,
> particularly reading Mawaki's email, I sense that there is some
> misunderstandings that are particularly coming up from the fact that
> part of the people in the list didn't attend BB meeting in Bali and
> deserve some clarification about what happened there.
>
> I know that everybody is really busy as since Bali the pace of events
> is accelerated (and on my case particularly overwhelmed with Brazil
> meeting issues), but I might be really useful if the steering make a
> joined effort to manage to report back from the meeting, particularly
> about the session on BB structure, so whoever that reads the wiki
> procedures will also have this background info.
>
> In the main while, let's try to trust each other a little bit... I'm
> pretty totally comfortable to reaffirm that there is a lot of good
> will within the steering, sometime we stumble in procedures, true, we
> are all testing methods, its part of the task, but are also truly open
> for suggestions and to implement changes. So, please, be sure concerns
> raised here are being heard. Let's just not block important things to
> get done.
>
> Therefore, I would suggest that we keep this thread to at least have
> the list of people that BB would like to suggest, having in mind the
> issue raised about indicating or not people that are already there.
> Deciding if it is going through IGC or not would be the next
> (complicated) step.
>
> all the best
>
> joana
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Marianne Franklin
> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all
>
>     Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG
>     from both current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated
>     through Best Bits) be posted so that we can inform other networks
>     of who is standing.
>
>     Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits
>     nominee can be noted.
>
>     Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance
>     structure need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB
>     Steering as well as co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the
>     need for clarity here too. But right at this moment as the list
>     and candidates form, it would be good for anyone else considering
>     standing for the MAG to know who is currently doing so. If a
>     person is standing in two places could they nominate which one
>     they are opting for too to save space and time?
>
>     Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing
>     MAG members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing.
>     Thank you all for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting
>     work on this group.
>
>     best
>     MF
>
>
>
>     On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>     (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit
>>     any mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates
>>     to those who will fill slots that will be open anyway. If we
>>     clarify that we support the continuation of the candidates who
>>     are eligible for continuing, and drop the specific candidates
>>     mentioned, this may help?
>>
>>     -- 
>>     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
>>     <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm
>>     <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>
>>>     Hello Colleagues,
>>>
>>>     Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in
>>>     my opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work
>>>     and have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will
>>>     Bill and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all
>>>     current CS MAG members
>>>
>>>     Regards
>>>
>>>     Poncelet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>     <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Hi
>>>
>>>         Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would
>>>         appreciate clarification.  When was the call for
>>>         nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when
>>>         was the period in which list members then expressed views
>>>         either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are a
>>>         bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and
>>>         such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and
>>>         meetings, so I at least missed all this.  
>>>
>>>         By selecting these six names, including just two current CS
>>>         MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and
>>>         DESA that you do not support the continued participation of
>>>         all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of
>>>         the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been
>>>         on it, etc?
>>>
>>>         It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>>>
>>>         Thanks
>>>
>>>         Bill
>>>
>>>         On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm
>>>         <jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>         On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder
>>>>         <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>         <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>         As said before, I do not agree to steering committee
>>>>>         choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next
>>>>>         steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are
>>>>>         serious. important issues which should have a clear,
>>>>>         transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process
>>>>>         around it. And I dont see that in place.
>>>>
>>>>         We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply
>>>>         collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could be
>>>>         used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the main
>>>>         list with a recommendation.  Although your objection was
>>>>         noted, most others were comfortable with this process and
>>>>         since we do not have voting or membership as such, we
>>>>         decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could
>>>>         probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to
>>>>         the MAG.
>>>>
>>>>         -- 
>>>>
>>>>         *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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer
>>>>         movement knowledge hub
>>>>         |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         @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.
>>>>
>>>>         *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are
>>>>         strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at
>>>>         your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>              http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>     Coordinator
>>>     The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>     MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>     P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>     The Gambia, West Africa
>>>     Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>     Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>     Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>     Skype: pons_utd
>>>     /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>>>     www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>>>     www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>
>>>     www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
>>>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>>     http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>     /www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>     <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>>>
>>>     *
>>>     *
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>     -- 
>     Professor Marianne Franklin
>     Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>     Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>     Goldsmiths, University of London
>     Dept. of Media & Communications
>     New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>     Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 <tel:%2B44%2020%207919%207072>
>     <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>     @GloComm
>     https://twitter.com/GloComm
>     http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
>     https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
>     www.internetrightsandprinciples.org <http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>     @netrights
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/9f0249a5/attachment.htm>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Wed Nov 20 09:49:45 2013
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:49:45 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528C92CA.8060207@cdt.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040CB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <ED9AE228-401E-483B-89D9-689AF8C26134@ciroap.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D040DA@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528C92CA.8060207@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <528CCC09.8010907@softwarefreedom.org>

+1

On 11/20/2013 05:45 AM, matthew shears wrote:
> Andrew completely agree.  Civil society inside and outside the MAG
> should push for full transparency and 3 year term limits, and these
> should be added to the (growing) list of things that need to change
> before IGF 2014.
>  
> On 20/11/2013 10:36, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Jeremy – that’s what I thought.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I’m not getting involved in the conversation about who is nominated
>> and how, as it is a crowded field.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I would simply ask _anyone_ that BB nominates/supports/passes on,
>>  tells the list what they think of this secretive unaccountable black
>> box in the MAG and what they would like to do about it.     If we
>> believe in multi-stakeholder processes and the IGF – we should do
>> something about it
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> *gp-digital.org*
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org]
>> *Sent:* 20 November 2013 10:23
>> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt
>> *Cc:* Poncelet Ileleji; William Drake; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>> Best Bits; Parminder Singh
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval
>> - URGENT
>>
>>  
>>
>> There should be, but no. 1/3 are meant to retire each year which
>> would imply a 3 year term limit. In reality some members have never
>> been rotated off. This is a deficiency of the "black box" selection
>> system which the MAG refuses to change. 
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:16 pm, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org
>> <mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Is there a term limit for service on the MAG?  Most organisations
>>     I know regard it as essential to have a turnover of membership
>>     after a suitable period of time.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>>
>>     Executive Director
>>
>>     Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>>     T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>>     andrewpuddephatt
>>     *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>
>>      
>>
>>     *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>     [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of
>>     *Poncelet Ileleji
>>     *Sent:* 20 November 2013 10:11
>>     *To:* William Drake
>>     *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>&gt Best Bits; Parminder Singh
>>     *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your
>>     approval - URGENT
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Hello Colleagues,
>>
>>     Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in
>>     my opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and
>>     have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill
>>     and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all current CS
>>     MAG members
>>
>>     Regards
>>
>>     Poncelet
>>
>>      
>>
>>      
>>
>>     On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
>>     <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate
>>     clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the
>>     deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list
>>     members then expressed views either way before you decided to go
>>     ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with
>>     Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of
>>     communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.  
>>
>>      
>>
>>     By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG
>>     members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that
>>     you do not support the continued participation of all the current
>>     CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work
>>     they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been on it, etc?
>>
>>      
>>
>>     It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Bill
>>
>>     On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
>>     <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG
>>     nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's
>>     membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues
>>     which should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus
>>     legitimate process around it. And I dont see that in place.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
>>     nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate
>>     them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a
>>     recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others
>>     were comfortable with this process and since we do not have
>>     voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If
>>     appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in
>>     the letter that goes to the MAG.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     *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>
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>     knowledge hub
>>     |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>>      
>>
>>     @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.
>>
>>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>      
>>
>>      
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>     Coordinator
>>     The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>     MDI Road Kanifing South
>>     P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>     The Gambia, West Africa
>>     Tel: (220) 4370240
>>     Fax:(220) 4390793
>>     Cell:(220) 9912508
>>     Skype: pons_utd
>>     /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>>     www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>>     www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>
>>     www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
>>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>     http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>     www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>     <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>>
>>     *
>>
>>
>>     */
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears


-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director 
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126 
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/e00a1085/attachment.htm>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Wed Nov 20 09:59:09 2013
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:59:09 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528CCE3D.6090207@softwarefreedom.org>

Hello Everyone,

My name is on this list but I concur with Bill and Anriette that people
who have put in a lot of work and are familiar with the nuts and bolts
of the process should be re-nominated. A single term ain't enough for
them to extract the full potential of the process.


On 11/20/2013 05:10 AM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
> Hello Colleagues,
>
> Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my
> opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have
> really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly
> belief in the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
>
> Regards
>
> Poncelet
>
>
>
>
> On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>
>     Hi
>
>     Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate
>     clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the
>     deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list
>     members then expressed views either way before you decided to go
>     ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with
>     Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of
>     communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.  
>
>     By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG
>     members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that
>     you do not support the continued participation of all the current
>     CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work
>     they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been on it, etc?
>
>     It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bill
>
>     On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
>     <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>>     On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>>     As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing
>>>     MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering
>>>     committee's membership, and so on.... These are serious.
>>>     important issues which should have a clear, transparent,
>>>     accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont
>>>     see that in place.
>>
>>     We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
>>     nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate
>>     them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a
>>     recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others
>>     were comfortable with this process and since we do not have
>>     voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If
>>     appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in
>>     the letter that goes to the MAG.
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     *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>
>>
>>
>>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>     knowledge hub
>>     |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>>
>>     @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.
>>
>>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
> www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>
> www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> /www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>
> *
> *
>


-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director 
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126 
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/5a4bb0d9/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov  1 19:04:55 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:04:55 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Transparency issue: private list with open archives
Message-ID: <BEEEF211-FE46-475B-A361-A34CAF55E3DA@ciroap.org>

Understanding the strongly-held differences of opinion on the issue of public and private lists, we would like to propose a compromise by moving sensitive discussions to the "private at lists.bestbits.net" list, but opening up the archives of that list.  The interim steering committee would use our best efforts to limit subscribers to civil society.

This accords with the understanding that was broadly reached at the meeting in Bali (admittedly, it was not a formal decision) that some discussions about a civil society strategy could take place on a list that was not open to governments or corporations, just as those constituencies have meetings to decide their own approach to issues.

As with discussions on the ec at lists.bestbits.net, we will make a point of reporting back to the main list.  This would include any calls for action and any documents produced.  In any case, it would remain open to anyone to share strategies on the main open list or discuss what they want.

-- 
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}'
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131102/a9bb0641/attachment.htm>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Wed Nov 20 10:01:40 2013
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:01:40 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <528CCED4.5090403@softwarefreedom.org>

Jeremy,

My apologies, I missed this email and assumed my name was still on this
list. SFLC.in endorses all these candidates and support Anja's
recommendation of adding William Drake to it. Thanks!

On 11/19/2013 11:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Here are those who have been nominated for election or re-election to
> the MAG by Best Bits participants.  This list, if agreed, would
> supplement (and may even be incorporated into, subject to their
> approval) the lists that other civil society groups such as the IGC
> put forward.  But if a full or partial joint nomination can't be
> accomplished, we will still try to organise a joint letter to the UN
> Secretariat listing the distinct slates of nominees and the different
> processes that were used to put them together.
>
>  1. Matthew Shears - Centre for Democracy and Technology (male, USA)
>  2. Anriette Esterhuysen - APC [renewal] (female, South Africa)
>  3. Nnenna Nwakanma - World Wide Web Foundation (female, Nigeria)
>  4. Bertrand de la Chapelle - Internet & Jurisdiction Project (male,
>     Europe)
>  5. Izumi Aizu [renewal] - Tama University, Institute for HyperNetwork
>     Society (male, Japan)
>  6. Ana Perdigao - various, see below (female, Europe)
>
> The steering committee did not exclude anyone whose nomination we
> received, however in terms of the criteria that were posted earlier,
> we draw attention to the fact that Ana Perdigao is a "new face" to
> most of us, so we cannot verify how closely she complies with them,
> notably being "active civil society participants".  She has been
> invited to post to this list to introduce herself and to clarify this
> and any other aspects.  Meanwhile some biographical information that
> she sent is below.[0]
>
> Most of the other candidates are well known to many of us, but we
> invite them also to send biographies to the list if they haven't
> already done so.
>
> With the above proviso, we are asking this list to endorse the above
> as candidates for the MAG - not to the exclusion of others, but at
> least to fill in some gaps in other lists, and in order to possibly be
> incorporated into the IGC's list (subject to their approval), this
> endorsement would have to be made by midnight 21 November GMT/UTC.
>
> Due to shortness of remaining time this will have to be an "opt out"
> process, so if you would prefer that we NOT forward any of the above
> candidate names, please let us know either by posting to the list or
> to steering at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:steering at lists.bestbits.net>.
>  In case we need to extend the process, then we do have about 10 more
> days before the nominations have to be forwarded to the IGC
> Secretariat, but we would not be able to join forces with the IGC if
> our process goes beyond midnight 21 November GMT/UTC.
>
> [0] Ana writes: "I participated in the WSIS and taking part in several
> panels on the multistakeholder approach. I have a legal background and
> I am currently a Senior Consultant in ICT and Internet in public
> affairs in Brussels. I am member of ISOC and in particular of the
> Portuguese Chapter and the Italian one. I am involved also in the
> Eurodig and this year I attended my first IGF.
>
> I am also in the steering committee of MediaLaws. I am correspondent
> for Portugal and Italy for IRIS the Audiovisual Journal of the
> European Audiovisual Observatory of the Council of Europe. I am a
> member of the Association Suisse de droit International and one of the
> co-founding members of the ONG Hemesphere, focus in development and
> cooperation through culture. I am co-founder of the association
> IdƏaree that has the aim to study the idea of the modern identity
> through the geographic space, Europe and the Member States, through
> culture. I am activist as well with Unicef Brussels.
>
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>


-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director 
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126 
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/25237c83/attachment.htm>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Wed Nov 20 10:03:14 2013
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:03:14 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528CC6CA.3050209@apc.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk> <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com> <528CC6CA.3050209@apc.org>
Message-ID: <528CCF32.7050807@softwarefreedom.org>

Jeremy,

My apologies, I missed this email and assumed my name was still on this
list. SFLC.in endorses all these candidates and support Anja's
recommendation of adding William Drake to it. Thanks!



On 11/20/2013 09:27 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> It is one of those weeks for me. Sorry.. I have not been able to
> follow this adequately. We are revising proposals, logframes and we
> are having an APC council meeting.
> I just wanted to add one piece of clarification.  The current CS MAG
> members have all served for under 2 years, with one exception.  For
> reasons that I still don't fully understand, the UN over-rotated CS
> members on the MAG. This had a very dramatic impact on CS's influence
> in the MAG.
>  
> Other stakeholder groups have not been as dramatically rotated, and
> there are some individuals that have stayed on since the beginning.
> The reason this happens I can share because I demanded to know and
> managed to get clarification from New York. The reason is that tech
> and business  re-nominate people every year, and they give the
> secretariat a 'full slate' that includes names to be retired, and
> names to be added.
>
> Coming back to CS. Here is the current listing of people and the year
> they joined. As you can see, they joined in May 2012 or later, with
> one exception. This does not mean we don't need rotation. There are
> some people that have not worked hard enough for reasons of being too
> busy, unableI to come to meetings (funding is not always available),
> or just lacking confidence. MAG work is not easy. In my view that
> means they should not remain. But there are some people on this list
> who have worked very hard, and who have managed to push through some
> difficult and challenging debates and I do think that it is important
> to keep them.
>
> *_Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/951-mag-bio-esterhuysen>:
> _anriette at apc.org_ <mailto:anriette at apc.org>2012_
> _*_Mr. Aizu, Izumi_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/942-mag-bio-aizu>*:
> *_iza at anr.org_ <mailto:iza at anr.org>_       _2012_
> _*_Mr. Guo, Liang_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/954-mag-bio-guo>:
> _guoliang at gmail.com_ <mailto:guoliang at gmail.com>2012_
> _*_Ms. Mangal, Anju_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/957-mag-bio-mangal>:
> _anjum at spc.int_ <mailto:anjum at spc.int>2012_
> _*_Ms. Cretu, Veronica: _*_veronica at cretu.md_
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/947-mag-bio-cretu>2012_
> _*_Ms. Kelly, Sanja_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/955-mag-bio-kelly>:
> _kelly at freedomhouse.org_ <mailto:kelly at freedomhouse.org>2012_
> _*_Ms. Morenets, Yuliya_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/959-mag-bio-morenets->:
> _contact at againstcybercrime.eu_ <mailto:contact at againstcybercrime.eu>2012_
> _*_Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir: _*_vladar at diplomacy.edu**_
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/966-mag-bio-radunoic>_ _2012_
> __Ms. Zachariah, Desiree: dazachariah at gmail.com _
> <mailto:Ms.Zachariah,Desiree:dazachariah at gmail.com>2013_
> _*_Mr. Drake, William_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/949-mag-bio-drake->:
> _william.drake at uzh.ch_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>2012_
> _*_Ms. Fell, Lucinda_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/952-mag-bio-fell>:
> _lucinda at childnet.com_ <mailto:lucinda at childnet.com>2012_
> _*_Ms. Cambronero, Fátima: _*_fatimacambronero at gmail.com_
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>2013*__*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>_
> _*_Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/960-mag-bio-nalwoga>_lnalwoga at gmail.com_
> <mailto:lnalwoga at gmail.com>2012_
> _*_Ms. Okite, Judith_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/961-mag-bio-okite>_judyokite at gmail.com_
> <mailto:judyokite at gmail.com>2012_
> _*_Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai_*
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/qusai>_qshatti at gmail.com_
> <mailto:qshatti at gmail.com>2006
> Subi Chaturvedi: 2013
>
> Anriette - writing in my capacity as an individual who has served on
> the MAG since May 2012 and who would like to remain for another term.
>
>
> On 20/11/2013 16:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please, allow me to raise a suggestion of the broader procedure:
>>
>> I see this issue is getting complicated and sensitive and,
>> particularly reading Mawaki's email, I sense that there is some
>> misunderstandings that are particularly coming up from the fact that
>> part of the people in the list didn't attend BB meeting in Bali and
>> deserve some clarification about what happened there.
>>
>> I know that everybody is really busy as since Bali the pace of events
>> is accelerated (and on my case particularly overwhelmed with Brazil
>> meeting issues), but I might be really useful if the steering make a
>> joined effort to manage to report back from the meeting, particularly
>> about the session on BB structure, so whoever that reads the wiki
>> procedures will also have this background info.
>>
>> In the main while, let's try to trust each other a little bit... I'm
>> pretty totally comfortable to reaffirm that there is a lot of good
>> will within the steering, sometime we stumble in procedures, true, we
>> are all testing methods, its part of the task, but are also truly
>> open for suggestions and to implement changes. So, please, be sure
>> concerns raised here are being heard. Let's just not block important
>> things to get done.
>>
>> Therefore, I would suggest that we keep this thread to at least have
>> the list of people that BB would like to suggest, having in mind the
>> issue raised about indicating or not people that are already there.
>> Deciding if it is going through IGC or not would be the next
>> (complicated) step.
>>
>> all the best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Marianne Franklin
>> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear all
>>
>>     Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG
>>     from both current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated
>>     through Best Bits) be posted so that we can inform other networks
>>     of who is standing.
>>
>>     Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits
>>     nominee can be noted.
>>
>>     Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance
>>     structure need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB
>>     Steering as well as co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the
>>     need for clarity here too. But right at this moment as the list
>>     and candidates form, it would be good for anyone else considering
>>     standing for the MAG to know who is currently doing so. If a
>>     person is standing in two places could they nominate which one
>>     they are opting for too to save space and time?
>>
>>     Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing
>>     MAG members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing.
>>     Thank you all for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting
>>     work on this group.
>>
>>     best
>>     MF
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>     (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we
>>>     omit any mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our
>>>     candidates to those who will fill slots that will be open
>>>     anyway. If we clarify that we support the continuation of the
>>>     candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop the
>>>     specific candidates mentioned, this may help?
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     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
>>>     <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>
>>>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm
>>>     <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>     Hello Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>>     Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in
>>>>     my opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work
>>>>     and have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will
>>>>     Bill and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all
>>>>     current CS MAG members
>>>>
>>>>     Regards
>>>>
>>>>     Poncelet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>>     <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Hi
>>>>
>>>>         Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would
>>>>         appreciate clarification.  When was the call for
>>>>         nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when
>>>>         was the period in which list members then expressed views
>>>>         either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are
>>>>         a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and
>>>>         such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and
>>>>         meetings, so I at least missed all this.  
>>>>
>>>>         By selecting these six names, including just two current CS
>>>>         MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and
>>>>         DESA that you do not support the continued participation of
>>>>         all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of
>>>>         the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been
>>>>         been on it, etc?
>>>>
>>>>         It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks
>>>>
>>>>         Bill
>>>>
>>>>         On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>         <jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>         On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder
>>>>>         <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>         <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>         As said before, I do not agree to steering committee
>>>>>>         choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next
>>>>>>         steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are
>>>>>>         serious. important issues which should have a clear,
>>>>>>         transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process
>>>>>>         around it. And I dont see that in place.
>>>>>
>>>>>         We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply
>>>>>         collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could
>>>>>         be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the
>>>>>         main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection
>>>>>         was noted, most others were comfortable with this process
>>>>>         and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we
>>>>>         decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could
>>>>>         probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to
>>>>>         the MAG.
>>>>>
>>>>>         -- 
>>>>>
>>>>>         *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>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer
>>>>>         movement knowledge hub
>>>>>         |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         @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.
>>>>>
>>>>>         *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are
>>>>>         strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at
>>>>>         your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>              http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>     Coordinator
>>>>     The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>     MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>     P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>     The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>     Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>     Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>     Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>     Skype: pons_utd
>>>>     /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>>>>     www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>>>>     www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>
>>>>     www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
>>>>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>>>     http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>     /www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>     <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>>>>
>>>>     *
>>>>     *
>>>>
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Professor Marianne Franklin
>>     Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>>     Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>>     Goldsmiths, University of London
>>     Dept. of Media & Communications
>>     New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>>     Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 <tel:%2B44%2020%207919%207072>
>>     <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>>     @GloComm
>>     https://twitter.com/GloComm
>>     http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
>>     https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
>>     www.internetrightsandprinciples.org <http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>     @netrights
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> -- 
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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


-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director 
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126 
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/1216fb5c/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Nov 20 10:14:13 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:14:13 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528CC6CA.3050209@apc.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk> <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com> <528CC6CA.3050209@apc.org>
Message-ID: <096201cee603$2c7bbc00$85733400$@gmail.com>

Thanks for this Anriette and one observation to make about the list and information that you have provided…

 

One obvious impact of the “black box” that is the MAG selection procedure is that—since the Business and Technical groupings are highly skewed to both Developed Country and Male representation, and since they are in effect unmovable, that means that in order for the UN to maintain gender and regional parity there needs to be a highly skewed parallel selection from the remaining stakeholder group i.e. CS, with the effect as we, see that the CS representation is highly skewed towards females 11 out of 16 and towards Developing countries and countries in transition, 9/10 out of 16 (depending how you count).

 

Nothing in principle wrong with that but it does reduce the chances of us pale males being selected to rather close to zero (and perhaps explains why Jeremy and myself (nominated by the IGC 3 times) have been singularly unsuccessful). 

 

Perhaps that is no loss, but then again perhaps it is.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:27 AM
To: Joana Varon; Marianne Franklin
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

 

Dear all

It is one of those weeks for me. Sorry.. I have not been able to follow this adequately. We are revising proposals, logframes and we are having an APC council meeting. 
I just wanted to add one piece of clarification.  The current CS MAG members have all served for under 2 years, with one exception.  For reasons that I still don't fully understand, the UN over-rotated CS members on the MAG. This had a very dramatic impact on CS's influence in the MAG. 
 
Other stakeholder groups have not been as dramatically rotated, and there are some individuals that have stayed on since the beginning. The reason this happens I can share because I demanded to know and managed to get clarification from New York. The reason is that tech and business  re-nominate people every year, and they give the secretariat a 'full slate' that includes names to be retired, and names to be added.

Coming back to CS. Here is the current listing of people and the year they joined. As you can see, they joined in May 2012 or later, with one exception. This does not mean we don't need rotation. There are some people that have not worked hard enough for reasons of being too busy, unableI to come to meetings (funding is not always available), or just lacking confidence. MAG work is not easy. In my view that means they should not remain. But there are some people on this list who have worked very hard, and who have managed to push through some difficult and challenging debates and I do think that it is important to keep them.

 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/951-mag-bio-esterhuysen> Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette: anriette at apc.org 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/942-mag-bio-aizu> Mr. Aizu, Izumi: iza at anr.org        2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/954-mag-bio-guo> Mr. Guo, Liang: guoliang at gmail.com 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/957-mag-bio-mangal> Ms. Mangal, Anju: anjum at spc.int 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/947-mag-bio-cretu> Ms. Cretu, Veronica: veronica at cretu.md 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/955-mag-bio-kelly> Ms. Kelly, Sanja: kelly at freedomhouse.org 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/959-mag-bio-morenets-> Ms. Morenets, Yuliya: contact at againstcybercrime.eu 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/966-mag-bio-radunoic> Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir: vladar at diplomacy.edu  2012
Ms. Zachariah, Desiree: dazachariah at gmail.com  <mailto:Ms.Zachariah,Desiree:dazachariah at gmail.com> 2013
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/949-mag-bio-drake-> Mr. Drake, William: william.drake at uzh.ch 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/952-mag-bio-fell> Ms. Fell, Lucinda: lucinda at childnet.com 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero> Ms. Cambronero, Fátima: fatimacambronero at gmail.com 2013 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>  
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/960-mag-bio-nalwoga> Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian  <mailto:lnalwoga at gmail.com> lnalwoga at gmail.com 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/961-mag-bio-okite> Ms. Okite, Judith  <mailto:judyokite at gmail.com> judyokite at gmail.com 2012
 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/qusai> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai  <mailto:qshatti at gmail.com> qshatti at gmail.com 2006 
Subi Chaturvedi: 2013 

Anriette - writing in my capacity as an individual who has served on the MAG since May 2012 and who would like to remain for another term. 

On 20/11/2013 16:09, Joana Varon wrote:

Dear all, 

Please, allow me to raise a suggestion of the broader procedure: 

 

I see this issue is getting complicated and sensitive and, particularly reading Mawaki's email, I sense that there is some misunderstandings that are particularly coming up from the fact that part of the people in the list didn't attend BB meeting in Bali and deserve some clarification about what happened there. 

I know that everybody is really busy as since Bali the pace of events is accelerated (and on my case particularly overwhelmed with Brazil meeting issues), but I might be really useful if the steering make a joined effort to manage to report back from the meeting, particularly about the session on BB structure, so whoever that reads the wiki procedures will also have this background info.


In the main while, let's try to trust each other a little bit... I'm pretty totally comfortable to reaffirm that there is a lot of good will within the steering, sometime we stumble in procedures, true, we are all testing methods, its part of the task, but are also truly open for suggestions and to implement changes. So, please, be sure concerns raised here are being heard. Let's just not block important things to get done. 

Therefore, I would suggest that we keep this thread to at least have the list of people that BB would like to suggest, having in mind the issue raised about indicating or not people that are already there. Deciding if it is going through IGC or not would be the next (complicated) step. 

all the best

joana

 

 

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear all

Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG from both current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated through Best Bits) be posted so that we can inform other networks of who is standing. 

Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits nominee can be noted. 

Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance structure need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB Steering as well as co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the need for clarity here too. But right at this moment as the list and candidates form, it would be good for anyone else considering standing for the MAG to know who is currently doing so. If a person is standing in two places could they nominate which one they are opting for too to save space and time?

Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing MAG members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing. Thank you all for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting work on this group. 

best
MF 

 

On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

(Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit any mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates to those who will fill slots that will be open anyway. If we clarify that we support the continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop the specific candidates mentioned, this may help?

--  

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}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

 


On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:

Hello Colleagues,

Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members

Regards

Poncelet

 

 

On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

Hi 

 

Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when was the period in which list members then expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.  

 

By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been been on it, etc?

 

It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

 

On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

 

As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont see that in place.

 

We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to the MAG.

 

-- 

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> 

 

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

 

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org <http://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.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see  <http://jere.my/l/8m> http://jere.my/l/8m.

 

 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

 

-- 
Professor Marianne Franklin
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 <tel:%2B44%2020%207919%207072> 
 <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/3c4df214/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Nov 20 10:16:41 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:16:41 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: ICANN engagement
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D04156@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

As you may remember, ICANN have create a panel under Beth Novak to think about the future of ICANN by soliciting the broadest range of views.   The panel is up and running and being supported by  Stefaan Verhulst, the Co-Founder and Chief of R&D, The Governance Lab @ NY, e-mail at
Sverhulst at nyu.edu<mailto:Sverhulst at nyu.edu>

Stefaan is keen to get lots of views and his happy to provide a dedicated briefing or if any other way of helping facilitate participation. Thanks


[cid:image002.png at 01CEE603.83D55650]




Designing a 21st Century ICANN
Hello!
Today, the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-innovation> (the MSI Panel) and The Governance Lab @ NYU<http://thegovlab.org/> (The GovLab) launched an online engagement effort aimed at helping to redesign the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the public interest organization responsible for coordinating the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) – for the 21st Century.

We are writing to request your participation in this important initiative and to help us spread the word!

The MSI Panel has been charged with:

 *   Proposing new models for international engagement, consensus-driven policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and
 *   Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable the global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making.
The Panel is a small group of seven with no monopoly on the best ideas for what ICANN should or should not do to coordinate the DNS in the public interest. All suggestions to make ICANN more effective and more democratic – whether constitutional, structural, legal, procedural or technological – will be welcome.

While we cannot decide for ICANN, the aim of the MSI Panel is to use its authority to push for real change. Thus, we want ideas that are concrete and specific for innovative processes, structures, platforms, and techniques to design a 21st century ICANN.

To gather and organize your input – we’re launching this campaign in three stages:

Stage 1: Idea Generation – STARTING TODAY and running for six weeks via an ideation platform, Ideascale. You can access our MSI Panel community page here<http://bit.ly/1dS9sLp>. On the page, you can submit any and all concrete ideas you have. You can rate and rank others’ for importance and practicality. November 19 - December 31.

Stage 2: Proposal Development – Submissions will be grouped into general proposals and opened to discussion using a blog with line-by-line annotation features. This phase will be designed to take ideas closer to implementation. January 14 - January 21.

Stage 3: Collaborative Drafting – Using a wiki<http://thegovlab.org/wiki/Main_Page>, we will invite collaborative drafting on specific proposals that the Panel will submit to the ICANN CEO, Board and community.January 28 - February 11.

To help us spread the word, we ask you to do any of the following:


 *   Submit ideas and encourage members of your network/community to contribute to the Ideascale community site by providing them with the link: http://thegovlab.ideascale.com/.
 *   Broadcast our “Call To Action,” for this initiative, which is online here<http://bit.ly/HWNxrW>, as widely as possible within your networks. Feel free to link to this post or repost on your website edited to fit your needs.
 *   Share this information within your community and network via mailing lists and listservs.
 *   Use social media platforms such as Facebook or Twitter to spread the word about the campaign. Don’t forget to use the hashtag #WeCANN.
 *   To inspire participation and learn how to contribute, watch and share a video<http://bit.ly/185t28Q> The GovLab has made for the launch of this distributed brainstorm.
 *   Host your own brainstorming forum and share ideas generated with the MSI Panel on our Ideascale community page.

For more information, visit The GovLab at www.thegovlab.org<http://www.thegovlab.org/>.

Thanks and best,

The MSI Panel & The GovLab





Stefaan Verhulst
Co-Founder and Chief of R&D, The Governance Lab @ NYU
@sverhulst
Sverhulst at nyu.edu<mailto:Sverhulst at nyu.edu>
GovLab: http://www.thegovlab.org<http://www.thegovlab.org/>
GovLab Blog: http://www.thegovlab.org/blog/
GovLab Research Digest: http://www.thegovlab.org/govlab-digest/




Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/aa6e4781/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 46761 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/aa6e4781/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 27967 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/aa6e4781/attachment-0001.png>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed Nov 20 10:42:32 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:42:32 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch>

Hi Jeremy

On Nov 20, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit any mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates to those who will fill slots that will be open anyway.

The process being followed was agreed off list?  Confused responses are then to be expected, no? 

> If we clarify that we support the continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop the specific candidates mentioned, this may help?

If indeed you support the continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, yes that would be important to say.  I wouldn’t leave it to the Secretariat and DESA to draw inferences.

But my questions remain.   Since others knew to respond I assume a CFP with this info was issued, but I missed it and can’t find it in the BB archives (apologies if it turns out this is simply because I’m in a crowded noisy hallway and can’t focus).   So again, could you tell when was the call for nominations, what was the deadline for submission, and what is the process from here?

Looking through other messages from today, I agree with Mawaki that when BB (and IGC, and anyone else) sends the secretariat nominations, this should be accompanied by a clear explanation of who’s making the nominations on what basis and the nomination procedure that’s been followed so they have context for what they’re looking at. 

I also agree with Anriette:

On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> As you can see, they joined in May 2012 or later, with one exception. This does not mean we don't need rotation. There are some people that have not worked hard enough for reasons of being too busy, unableI to come to meetings (funding is not always available), or just lacking confidence. MAG work is not easy. In my view that means they should not remain. But there are some people on this list who have worked very hard, and who have managed to push through some difficult and challenging debates and I do think that it is important to keep them.



The problem is that the only people who can readily identify those have not contributed much are their colleagues, and this would be rather awkward, to put it mildly.  Unless they choose on their own accord to stand up and say they’re too busy etc. to continue, I have no idea how to approach this problem, whether on BB or elsewhere.  It is however consequential—heavy loads require all available hands or the few end up struggling.

Best,

Bill






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/2a6bb4c3/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Nov 20 10:53:08 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:53:08 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <096201cee603$2c7bbc00$85733400$@gmail.com>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
	<02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>
	<CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org>
	<528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk>
	<CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com>
	<528CC6CA.3050209@apc.org>
	<096201cee603$2c7bbc00$85733400$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh102j8OvZYwVk43RPkwZQ-bvpkvCK5+psH7qA79sLtNt+g@mail.gmail.com>

Two years ago, I published "The MAG: To be on not to be" on
http://nnennaorg.blogspot.com/2012/02/mag-to-be-or-not-to-be.html I gave
reasons for saying "No" all the time.   Having read some of the thoughts
expresssed on this thread, it is unfortunate that the tendancy is still
there that being on the  MAG is a position, in stead of a responsibility.
That, for me, is really worrying.

I  have always had a "Thanks, but no, thanks" attitude. This time, however,
you will find my name on IGC, Best Bits and  even Diplo.

I only made a nomination: that is on Bestt Bits. Those on Diplo have my
blog post to refer to. I was nominated by someone in the IGC.

For some of us who might not know, referring BB-endorsed nominees to the
IGC NomCom will not equal a collective CS- MAG nomination. Because at the
moment, other CS entities are doing nominations. And some of these are also
in BB and IGC.

While Jeremy is airbound and may not be able to reply to many threads, I
will say that the spirit of his email was:
"Here are the nominations that people have made that were submitted to the
BB Steering" It is not in any way over riding the BB list. Since that mail,
Imran Shah has self nominated (So we dont forget).


I think that we have said and it is still my understanding , that BB is an
action platform. So it amuses me to see emails saying "we cannot do" xyz.
We are here to do things!

My 2 cents/


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:14 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks for this Anriette and one observation to make about the list and
> information that you have provided…
>
>
>
> One obvious impact of the “black box” that is the MAG selection procedure
> is that—since the Business and Technical groupings are highly skewed to
> both Developed Country and Male representation, and since they are in
> effect unmovable, that means that in order for the UN to maintain gender
> and regional parity there needs to be a highly skewed parallel selection
> from the remaining stakeholder group i.e. CS, with the effect as we, see
> that the CS representation is highly skewed towards females 11 out of 16
> and towards Developing countries and countries in transition, 9/10 out of
> 16 (depending how you count).
>
>
>
> Nothing in principle wrong with that but it does reduce the chances of us
> pale males being selected to rather close to zero (and perhaps explains why
> Jeremy and myself (nominated by the IGC 3 times) have been singularly
> unsuccessful).
>
>
>
> Perhaps that is no loss, but then again perhaps it is.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette Esterhuysen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:27 AM
> *To:* Joana Varon; Marianne Franklin
> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval -
> URGENT
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
>
> It is one of those weeks for me. Sorry.. I have not been able to follow
> this adequately. We are revising proposals, logframes and we are having an
> APC council meeting.
> I just wanted to add one piece of clarification.  The current CS MAG
> members have all served for under 2 years, with one exception.  For reasons
> that I still don't fully understand, the UN over-rotated CS members on the
> MAG. This had a very dramatic impact on CS's influence in the MAG.
>
> Other stakeholder groups have not been as dramatically rotated, and there
> are some individuals that have stayed on since the beginning. The reason
> this happens I can share because I demanded to know and managed to get
> clarification from New York. The reason is that tech and business
> re-nominate people every year, and they give the secretariat a 'full slate'
> that includes names to be retired, and names to be added.
>
> Coming back to CS. Here is the current listing of people and the year they
> joined. As you can see, they joined in May 2012 or later, with one
> exception. This does not mean we don't need rotation. There are some people
> that have not worked hard enough for reasons of being too busy, unableI to
> come to meetings (funding is not always available), or just lacking
> confidence. MAG work is not easy. In my view that means they should not
> remain. But there are some people on this list who have worked very hard,
> and who have managed to push through some difficult and challenging debates
> and I do think that it is important to keep them.
>
> *Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/951-mag-bio-esterhuysen>:
> anriette at apc.org 2012
> *Mr. Aizu, Izumi*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/942-mag-bio-aizu>*:
> *iza at anr.org        2012
> *Mr. Guo, Liang*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/954-mag-bio-guo>:
> guoliang at gmail.com 2012
> *Ms. Mangal, Anju*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/957-mag-bio-mangal>:
> anjum at spc.int 2012
> *Ms. Cretu, Veronica: *veronica at cretu.md<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/947-mag-bio-cretu>
> 2012
> *Ms. Kelly, Sanja*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/955-mag-bio-kelly>:
> kelly at freedomhouse.org 2012
> *Ms. Morenets, Yuliya*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/959-mag-bio-morenets->:
> contact at againstcybercrime.eu 2012
> *Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir: *vladar at diplomacy.edu
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/966-mag-bio-radunoic>
>  2012
> Ms. Zachariah, Desiree: dazachariah at gmail.com
> <Ms.Zachariah,Desiree:dazachariah at gmail.com>2013
> *Mr. Drake, William*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/949-mag-bio-drake->:
> william.drake at uzh.ch 2012
> *Ms. Fell, Lucinda*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/952-mag-bio-fell>:
> lucinda at childnet.com 2012
> *Ms. Cambronero, Fátima: *fatimacambronero at gmail.com<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>2013
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>
> *Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/960-mag-bio-nalwoga>
> lnalwoga at gmail.com 2012
> *Ms. Okite, Judith*<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/961-mag-bio-okite>
> judyokite at gmail.com 2012
> *Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai* <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/qusai>
> qshatti at gmail.com 2006
> Subi Chaturvedi: 2013
>
> Anriette - writing in my capacity as an individual who has served on the
> MAG since May 2012 and who would like to remain for another term.
>
> On 20/11/2013 16:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please, allow me to raise a suggestion of the broader procedure:
>
>
>
> I see this issue is getting complicated and sensitive and, particularly
> reading Mawaki's email, I sense that there is some misunderstandings that
> are particularly coming up from the fact that part of the people in the
> list didn't attend BB meeting in Bali and deserve some clarification about
> what happened there.
>
> I know that everybody is really busy as since Bali the pace of events is
> accelerated (and on my case particularly overwhelmed with Brazil meeting
> issues), but I might be really useful if the steering make a joined effort
> to manage to report back from the meeting, particularly about the session
> on BB structure, so whoever that reads the wiki procedures will also have
> this background info.
>
>
> In the main while, let's try to trust each other a little bit... I'm
> pretty totally comfortable to reaffirm that there is a lot of good will
> within the steering, sometime we stumble in procedures, true, we are all
> testing methods, its part of the task, but are also truly open for
> suggestions and to implement changes. So, please, be sure concerns raised
> here are being heard. Let's just not block important things to get done.
>
> Therefore, I would suggest that we keep this thread to at least have the
> list of people that BB would like to suggest, having in mind the issue
> raised about indicating or not people that are already there. Deciding if
> it is going through IGC or not would be the next (complicated) step.
>
> all the best
>
> joana
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Marianne Franklin <
> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG from
> both current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated through Best
> Bits) be posted so that we can inform other networks of who is standing.
>
> Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits nominee
> can be noted.
>
> Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance
> structure need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB Steering as
> well as co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the need for clarity here
> too. But right at this moment as the list and candidates form, it would be
> good for anyone else considering standing for the MAG to know who is
> currently doing so. If a person is standing in two places could they
> nominate which one they are opting for too to save space and time?
>
> Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing MAG
> members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing. Thank you all
> for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting work on this group.
>
> best
> MF
>
>
>
> On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit any
> mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates to those who
> will fill slots that will be open anyway. If we clarify that we support the
> continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop
> the specific candidates mentioned, this may help?
>
> --
>
> 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}'
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>
> Hello Colleagues,
>
> Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my
> opinion  the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really
> put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in
> the overall continuity of all current CS MAG members
>
> Regards
>
> Poncelet
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate
> clarification.  When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline
> for submission, and when was the period in which list members then
> expressed views either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are
> a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are
> awash in a tidal wave of communications and meetings, so I at least missed
> all this.
>
>
>
> By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members,
> do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support
> the continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed,
> irrespective of the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been
> been on it, etc?
>
>
>
> It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG
> nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership,
> and so on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a
> clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And
> I dont see that in place.
>
>
>
> We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
> nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and
> forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your
> objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and
> since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.
>  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the
> letter that goes to the MAG.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
>
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
>
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org>www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>www.itag.gm
> <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>www.diplointernetgovernance.org
> <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>*
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> --
>
> Professor Marianne Franklin
>
> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>
> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>
> Goldsmiths, University of London
>
> Dept. of Media & Communications
>
> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>
> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
>
> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>
> @GloComm
>
> https://twitter.com/GloComm
>
> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
>
> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
>
> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> @netrights
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/df4ddd63/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Nov 20 10:59:29 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:59:29 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk> <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <09ea01cee609$7f6b5dc0$7e421940$@gmail.com>

Joana and all,

 

Unfortunately in the post-Snowden world "trust us" is not a sufficient
answer-only transparency and accountability are.

 

As long as the Steering Committee is self-appointed through murky procedures
and as long as this self-appointed (Interim or no) Steering Committee
chooses to act (and present itself to the world) as though it has a mandate
to act on behalf of the BB grouping whatever that might be, there will
necessarily and quite reasonably be a lack of trust and questions as to
legitimacy.

 

There are two solutions, either open up the (Interim) Steering Committee to
self-nominations, or have the (Interim) Steering Committee as its final act
create and execute a (if necessary summary) procedure for selection (and
thus legitimation). 

 

If there are concerns about the Steering Committee being unworkable then
decision making procedures should be proposed and confirmed by the BB list.

 

Without the above, issues of legitimacy will, one would anticipate,
undermine any actions/presentations/nominations coming out of BB in any
case.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:09 AM
To: Marianne Franklin
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

 

Dear all, 

Please, allow me to raise a suggestion of the broader procedure: 

 

I see this issue is getting complicated and sensitive and, particularly
reading Mawaki's email, I sense that there is some misunderstandings that
are particularly coming up from the fact that part of the people in the list
didn't attend BB meeting in Bali and deserve some clarification about what
happened there. 

I know that everybody is really busy as since Bali the pace of events is
accelerated (and on my case particularly overwhelmed with Brazil meeting
issues), but I might be really useful if the steering make a joined effort
to manage to report back from the meeting, particularly about the session on
BB structure, so whoever that reads the wiki procedures will also have this
background info.


In the main while, let's try to trust each other a little bit... I'm pretty
totally comfortable to reaffirm that there is a lot of good will within the
steering, sometime we stumble in procedures, true, we are all testing
methods, its part of the task, but are also truly open for suggestions and
to implement changes. So, please, be sure concerns raised here are being
heard. Let's just not block important things to get done. 

Therefore, I would suggest that we keep this thread to at least have the
list of people that BB would like to suggest, having in mind the issue
raised about indicating or not people that are already there. Deciding if it
is going through IGC or not would be the next (complicated) step. 

all the best

joana

 

 

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Marianne Franklin
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear all

Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG from both
current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated through Best Bits) be
posted so that we can inform other networks of who is standing. 

Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits nominee can
be noted. 

Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance structure
need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB Steering as well as
co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the need for clarity here too. But
right at this moment as the list and candidates form, it would be good for
anyone else considering standing for the MAG to know who is currently doing
so. If a person is standing in two places could they nominate which one they
are opting for too to save space and time?

Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing MAG
members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing. Thank you all
for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting work on this group. 

best
MF

 

On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

(Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we omit any
mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our candidates to those who
will fill slots that will be open anyway. If we clarify that we support the
continuation of the candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop the
specific candidates mentioned, this may help?

--  

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}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
http://jere.my/l/8m.

 


On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:

Hello Colleagues,

Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in my opinion
the current CS MAG members are doing a great work and have really put in a
lot of time to this  , I concur will Bill and strongly belief in the overall
continuity of all current CS MAG members

Regards

Poncelet

 

 

On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

Hi 

 

Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would appreciate clarification.
When was the call for nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and
when was the period in which list members then expressed views either way
before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are a bit busy in Buenos Aires
dealing with Brazil meeting and such and are awash in a tidal wave of
communications and meetings, so I at least missed all this.  

 

By selecting these six names, including just two current CS MAG members, do
you wish to convey to the Secretariat and DESA that you do not support the
continued participation of all the current CS MAG members not listed,
irrespective of the time and work they've put in, how long they've been been
on it, etc?

 

It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

 

On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

 

As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG nominees,
or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's membership, and so
on.... These are serious. important issues which should have a clear,
transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process around it. And I dont
see that in place.

 

We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the
nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, and
forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.  Although your
objection was noted, most others were comfortable with this process and
since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to go ahead.
If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in the
letter that goes to the MAG.

 

-- 

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> 

 

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
|http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

 

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://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.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
<http://jere.my/l/8m> http://jere.my/l/8m.

 

 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

 

-- 
Professor Marianne Franklin
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 <tel:%2B44%2020%207919%207072> 
 <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/a7e54dee/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Nov 20 11:58:31 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:58:31 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528CC6CA.3050209@apc.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk> <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com> <528CC6CA.3050209@apc.org>
Message-ID: <528CEA37.4090901@cdt.org>

Hi Anriette,

Thanks for these important insights.  I find this a very bizarre 
situation - that CS has to rotate people out despite the fact that most 
have not had the opportunity to fill what seems to be commonly accepted 
3 year term (would love to know where that may be in writing, however).  
In fact short of those who do not wish to continue and voluntarily step 
down, I really don't see why any of the CS reps should be rotated out.  
This process needs to be based on term limits rather than arbitrary 
rotations (and all those who have been on for more than 3 years should 
do the right thing and step down).

Matthew

On 20/11/2013 14:27, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> It is one of those weeks for me. Sorry.. I have not been able to 
> follow this adequately. We are revising proposals, logframes and we 
> are having an APC council meeting.
> I just wanted to add one piece of clarification.  The current CS MAG 
> members have all served for under 2 years, with one exception.  For 
> reasons that I still don't fully understand, the UN over-rotated CS 
> members on the MAG. This had a very dramatic impact on CS's influence 
> in the MAG.
>
> Other stakeholder groups have not been as dramatically rotated, and 
> there are some individuals that have stayed on since the beginning. 
> The reason this happens I can share because I demanded to know and 
> managed to get clarification from New York. The reason is that tech 
> and business  re-nominate people every year, and they give the 
> secretariat a 'full slate' that includes names to be retired, and 
> names to be added.
>
> Coming back to CS. Here is the current listing of people and the year 
> they joined. As you can see, they joined in May 2012 or later, with 
> one exception. This does not mean we don't need rotation. There are 
> some people that have not worked hard enough for reasons of being too 
> busy, unableI to come to meetings (funding is not always available), 
> or just lacking confidence. MAG work is not easy. In my view that 
> means they should not remain. But there are some people on this list 
> who have worked very hard, and who have managed to push through some 
> difficult and challenging debates and I do think that it is important 
> to keep them.
>
> *_Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/951-mag-bio-esterhuysen>: 
> _anriette at apc.org_ <mailto:anriette at apc.org>2012_
> _*_Mr. Aizu, Izumi_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/942-mag-bio-aizu>*: 
> *_iza at anr.org_ <mailto:iza at anr.org>__2012_
> _*_Mr. Guo, Liang_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/954-mag-bio-guo>: 
> _guoliang at gmail.com_ <mailto:guoliang at gmail.com>2012_
> _*_Ms. Mangal, Anju_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/957-mag-bio-mangal>: 
> _anjum at spc.int_ <mailto:anjum at spc.int>2012_
> _*_Ms. Cretu, Veronica: _*_veronica at cretu.md_ 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/947-mag-bio-cretu>2012_
> _*_Ms. Kelly, Sanja_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/955-mag-bio-kelly>: 
> _kelly at freedomhouse.org_ <mailto:kelly at freedomhouse.org>2012_
> _*_Ms. Morenets, Yuliya_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/959-mag-bio-morenets->: 
> _contact at againstcybercrime.eu_ <mailto:contact at againstcybercrime.eu>2012_
> _*_Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir: _*_vladar at diplomacy.edu**_ 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/966-mag-bio-radunoic>__2012_
> __Ms. Zachariah, Desiree: dazachariah at gmail.com _ 
> <mailto:Ms.Zachariah,Desiree:dazachariah at gmail.com>2013_
> _*_Mr. Drake, William_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/949-mag-bio-drake->: 
> _william.drake at uzh.ch_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>2012_
> _*_Ms. Fell, Lucinda_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/952-mag-bio-fell>: 
> _lucinda at childnet.com_ <mailto:lucinda at childnet.com>2012_
> _*_Ms. Cambronero, Fátima: _*_fatimacambronero at gmail.com_ 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>2013*__* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>_
> _*_Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/960-mag-bio-nalwoga>_lnalwoga at gmail.com_ 
> <mailto:lnalwoga at gmail.com>2012_
> _*_Ms. Okite, Judith_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/961-mag-bio-okite>_judyokite at gmail.com_ 
> <mailto:judyokite at gmail.com>2012_
> _*_Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai_* 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/qusai>_qshatti at gmail.com_ 
> <mailto:qshatti at gmail.com>2006
> Subi Chaturvedi: 2013
>
> Anriette - writing in my capacity as an individual who has served on 
> the MAG since May 2012 and who would like to remain for another term.
>
>
> On 20/11/2013 16:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please, allow me to raise a suggestion of the broader procedure:
>>
>> I see this issue is getting complicated and sensitive and, 
>> particularly reading Mawaki's email, I sense that there is some 
>> misunderstandings that are particularly coming up from the fact that 
>> part of the people in the list didn't attend BB meeting in Bali and 
>> deserve some clarification about what happened there.
>>
>> I know that everybody is really busy as since Bali the pace of events 
>> is accelerated (and on my case particularly overwhelmed with Brazil 
>> meeting issues), but I might be really useful if the steering make a 
>> joined effort to manage to report back from the meeting, particularly 
>> about the session on BB structure, so whoever that reads the wiki 
>> procedures will also have this background info.
>>
>> In the main while, let's try to trust each other a little bit... I'm 
>> pretty totally comfortable to reaffirm that there is a lot of good 
>> will within the steering, sometime we stumble in procedures, true, we 
>> are all testing methods, its part of the task, but are also truly 
>> open for suggestions and to implement changes. So, please, be sure 
>> concerns raised here are being heard. Let's just not block important 
>> things to get done.
>>
>> Therefore, I would suggest that we keep this thread to at least have 
>> the list of people that BB would like to suggest, having in mind the 
>> issue raised about indicating or not people that are already there. 
>> Deciding if it is going through IGC or not would be the next 
>> (complicated) step.
>>
>> all the best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Marianne Franklin 
>> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear all
>>
>>     Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG
>>     from both current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated
>>     through Best Bits) be posted so that we can inform other networks
>>     of who is standing.
>>
>>     Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits
>>     nominee can be noted.
>>
>>     Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance
>>     structure need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB
>>     Steering as well as co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the
>>     need for clarity here too. But right at this moment as the list
>>     and candidates form, it would be good for anyone else considering
>>     standing for the MAG to know who is currently doing so. If a
>>     person is standing in two places could they nominate which one
>>     they are opting for too to save space and time?
>>
>>     Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing
>>     MAG members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing.
>>     Thank you all for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting
>>     work on this group.
>>
>>     best
>>     MF
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>     (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we
>>>     omit any mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our
>>>     candidates to those who will fill slots that will be open
>>>     anyway. If we clarify that we support the continuation of the
>>>     candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop the
>>>     specific candidates mentioned, this may help?
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     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
>>>     <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>
>>>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm
>>>     <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>     Hello Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>>     Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in
>>>>     my opinion the current CS MAG members are doing a great work
>>>>     and have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will
>>>>     Bill and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all
>>>>     current CS MAG members
>>>>
>>>>     Regards
>>>>
>>>>     Poncelet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>>     <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Hi
>>>>
>>>>         Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would
>>>>         appreciate clarification.  When was the call for
>>>>         nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when
>>>>         was the period in which list members then expressed views
>>>>         either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are
>>>>         a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and
>>>>         such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and
>>>>         meetings, so I at least missed all this.
>>>>
>>>>         By selecting these six names, including just two current CS
>>>>         MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and
>>>>         DESA that you do not support the continued participation of
>>>>         all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of
>>>>         the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been
>>>>         been on it, etc?
>>>>
>>>>         It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks
>>>>
>>>>         Bill
>>>>
>>>>         On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>         <jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>         On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder
>>>>>         <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>         <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>         As said before, I do not agree to steering committee
>>>>>>         choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next
>>>>>>         steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are
>>>>>>         serious. important issues which should have a clear,
>>>>>>         transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process
>>>>>>         around it. And I dont see that in place.
>>>>>
>>>>>         We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply
>>>>>         collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could
>>>>>         be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the
>>>>>         main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection
>>>>>         was noted, most others were comfortable with this process
>>>>>         and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we
>>>>>         decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could
>>>>>         probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to
>>>>>         the MAG.
>>>>>
>>>>>         -- 
>>>>>
>>>>>         *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>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer
>>>>>         movement knowledge hub
>>>>>         |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         @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.
>>>>>
>>>>>         *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are
>>>>>         strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at
>>>>>         your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>     Coordinator
>>>>     The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>     MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>     P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>     The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>     Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>     Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>     Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>     Skype: pons_utd
>>>>     /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>>>>     www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>>>>     www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>
>>>>     www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
>>>>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>>>     http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>     /www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>     <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>>>>
>>>>     *
>>>>     *
>>>>
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Professor Marianne Franklin
>>     Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>>     Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>>     Goldsmiths, University of London
>>     Dept. of Media & Communications
>>     New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>>     Tel:+44 20 7919 7072  <tel:%2B44%2020%207919%207072>
>>     <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>  <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>>     @GloComm
>>     https://twitter.com/GloComm
>>     http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
>>     https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
>>     www.internetrightsandprinciples.org  <http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>     @netrights
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> -- 
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/a9e0ba36/attachment.htm>

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Wed Nov 20 14:05:52 2013
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:05:52 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <528CEA37.4090901@cdt.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
	<02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>
	<CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org>
	<528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk>
	<CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com>
	<528CC6CA.3050209@apc.org>
	<528CEA37.4090901@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwpZ4T3vdMOokNQ+VK6DsXZxXE1Okt945aoBu=5hmGE0xw@mail.gmail.com>

Matthew, if current MAG members feel that xyz has not been as
effective in driving the CS agenda, for whatever reason (financial,
confidence, working IG knowledge ...) as Anriette is putting it, they
should be replaced. But the challenge will be to benchmark the
individual deliverable. Is there a performance measurement tool for
MAG members contribution into the process?

Those making noise about the constitution of nominees are out of order
because everybody capable is eligible, and the onus rests on NomCom.
To echo Salanieta's clarion call, we should have as many candidates as
possible so that NomCom can have a rich pool to choose from.

Warm Regards

On 20/11/2013, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> Hi Anriette,
>
> Thanks for these important insights.  I find this a very bizarre
> situation - that CS has to rotate people out despite the fact that most
> have not had the opportunity to fill what seems to be commonly accepted
> 3 year term (would love to know where that may be in writing, however).
> In fact short of those who do not wish to continue and voluntarily step
> down, I really don't see why any of the CS reps should be rotated out.
> This process needs to be based on term limits rather than arbitrary
> rotations (and all those who have been on for more than 3 years should
> do the right thing and step down).
>
> Matthew
>
> On 20/11/2013 14:27, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> It is one of those weeks for me. Sorry.. I have not been able to
>> follow this adequately. We are revising proposals, logframes and we
>> are having an APC council meeting.
>> I just wanted to add one piece of clarification.  The current CS MAG
>> members have all served for under 2 years, with one exception.  For
>> reasons that I still don't fully understand, the UN over-rotated CS
>> members on the MAG. This had a very dramatic impact on CS's influence
>> in the MAG.
>>
>> Other stakeholder groups have not been as dramatically rotated, and
>> there are some individuals that have stayed on since the beginning.
>> The reason this happens I can share because I demanded to know and
>> managed to get clarification from New York. The reason is that tech
>> and business  re-nominate people every year, and they give the
>> secretariat a 'full slate' that includes names to be retired, and
>> names to be added.
>>
>> Coming back to CS. Here is the current listing of people and the year
>> they joined. As you can see, they joined in May 2012 or later, with
>> one exception. This does not mean we don't need rotation. There are
>> some people that have not worked hard enough for reasons of being too
>> busy, unableI to come to meetings (funding is not always available),
>> or just lacking confidence. MAG work is not easy. In my view that
>> means they should not remain. But there are some people on this list
>> who have worked very hard, and who have managed to push through some
>> difficult and challenging debates and I do think that it is important
>> to keep them.
>>
>> *_Ms. Esterhuysen, Anriette_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/951-mag-bio-esterhuysen>:
>>
>> _anriette at apc.org_ <mailto:anriette at apc.org>2012_
>> _*_Mr. Aizu, Izumi_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/942-mag-bio-aizu>*:
>>
>> *_iza at anr.org_ <mailto:iza at anr.org>__2012_
>> _*_Mr. Guo, Liang_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/954-mag-bio-guo>:
>>
>> _guoliang at gmail.com_ <mailto:guoliang at gmail.com>2012_
>> _*_Ms. Mangal, Anju_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/957-mag-bio-mangal>:
>>
>> _anjum at spc.int_ <mailto:anjum at spc.int>2012_
>> _*_Ms. Cretu, Veronica: _*_veronica at cretu.md_
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/947-mag-bio-cretu>2012_
>> _*_Ms. Kelly, Sanja_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/955-mag-bio-kelly>:
>>
>> _kelly at freedomhouse.org_ <mailto:kelly at freedomhouse.org>2012_
>> _*_Ms. Morenets, Yuliya_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/959-mag-bio-morenets->:
>>
>> _contact at againstcybercrime.eu_ <mailto:contact at againstcybercrime.eu>2012_
>> _*_Mr. Radunovic, Vladimir: _*_vladar at diplomacy.edu**_
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/966-mag-bio-radunoic>__2012_
>> __Ms. Zachariah, Desiree: dazachariah at gmail.com _
>> <mailto:Ms.Zachariah,Desiree:dazachariah at gmail.com>2013_
>> _*_Mr. Drake, William_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/949-mag-bio-drake->:
>>
>> _william.drake at uzh.ch_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>2012_
>> _*_Ms. Fell, Lucinda_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/952-mag-bio-fell>:
>>
>> _lucinda at childnet.com_ <mailto:lucinda at childnet.com>2012_
>> _*_Ms. Cambronero, Fátima: _*_fatimacambronero at gmail.com_
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>2013*__*
>>
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/1294-ms-fatima-cambronero>_
>> _*_Ms. Nalwoga, Lillian_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/960-mag-bio-nalwoga>_lnalwoga at gmail.com_
>>
>> <mailto:lnalwoga at gmail.com>2012_
>> _*_Ms. Okite, Judith_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/961-mag-bio-okite>_judyokite at gmail.com_
>>
>> <mailto:judyokite at gmail.com>2012_
>> _*_Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai_*
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/qusai>_qshatti at gmail.com_
>> <mailto:qshatti at gmail.com>2006
>> Subi Chaturvedi: 2013
>>
>> Anriette - writing in my capacity as an individual who has served on
>> the MAG since May 2012 and who would like to remain for another term.
>>
>>
>> On 20/11/2013 16:09, Joana Varon wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please, allow me to raise a suggestion of the broader procedure:
>>>
>>> I see this issue is getting complicated and sensitive and,
>>> particularly reading Mawaki's email, I sense that there is some
>>> misunderstandings that are particularly coming up from the fact that
>>> part of the people in the list didn't attend BB meeting in Bali and
>>> deserve some clarification about what happened there.
>>>
>>> I know that everybody is really busy as since Bali the pace of events
>>> is accelerated (and on my case particularly overwhelmed with Brazil
>>> meeting issues), but I might be really useful if the steering make a
>>> joined effort to manage to report back from the meeting, particularly
>>> about the session on BB structure, so whoever that reads the wiki
>>> procedures will also have this background info.
>>>
>>> In the main while, let's try to trust each other a little bit... I'm
>>> pretty totally comfortable to reaffirm that there is a lot of good
>>> will within the steering, sometime we stumble in procedures, true, we
>>> are all testing methods, its part of the task, but are also truly
>>> open for suggestions and to implement changes. So, please, be sure
>>> concerns raised here are being heard. Let's just not block important
>>> things to get done.
>>>
>>> Therefore, I would suggest that we keep this thread to at least have
>>> the list of people that BB would like to suggest, having in mind the
>>> issue raised about indicating or not people that are already there.
>>> Deciding if it is going through IGC or not would be the next
>>> (complicated) step.
>>>
>>> all the best
>>>
>>> joana
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Marianne Franklin
>>> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Dear all
>>>
>>>     Could I suggest that all the names of anyone going up for the MAG
>>>     from both current slates (i.e. run by the IGC and being collated
>>>     through Best Bits) be posted so that we can inform other networks
>>>     of who is standing.
>>>
>>>     Whether they are looking to stand as an IGC nominee or Best Bits
>>>     nominee can be noted.
>>>
>>>     Ongoing, and important discussions about the Best Bits governance
>>>     structure need to continue, and as a member of the interim BB
>>>     Steering as well as co-Chair of the IRP Coalition I support the
>>>     need for clarity here too. But right at this moment as the list
>>>     and candidates form, it would be good for anyone else considering
>>>     standing for the MAG to know who is currently doing so. If a
>>>     person is standing in two places could they nominate which one
>>>     they are opting for too to save space and time?
>>>
>>>     Also, I join those affirmations of the work done by all standing
>>>     MAG members, in this case from civil society, who are continuing.
>>>     Thank you all for the hard and often unrewarded and unrelenting
>>>     work on this group.
>>>
>>>     best
>>>     MF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 20/11/2013 10:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>     (Replying from phone.) I had suggested off this list that we
>>>>     omit any mention of the incumbent MAG members and limit our
>>>>     candidates to those who will fill slots that will be open
>>>>     anyway. If we clarify that we support the continuation of the
>>>>     candidates who are eligible for continuing, and drop the
>>>>     specific candidates mentioned, this may help?
>>>>
>>>>     --
>>>>     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
>>>>     <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>
>>>>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>>>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 20 Nov 2013, at 6:10 pm, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm
>>>>     <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Good day, I think its important for continuity especially as in
>>>>>     my opinion the current CS MAG members are doing a great work
>>>>>     and have really put in a lot of time to this  , I concur will
>>>>>     Bill and strongly belief in the overall continuity of all
>>>>>     current CS MAG members
>>>>>
>>>>>     Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>     Poncelet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 20 November 2013 10:05, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>>>     <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Hi
>>>>>
>>>>>         Just woke up and am rushing to a meeting but would
>>>>>         appreciate clarification.  When was the call for
>>>>>         nominations, when was the deadline for submission, and when
>>>>>         was the period in which list members then expressed views
>>>>>         either way before you decided to go ahead?  Some of us are
>>>>>         a bit busy in Buenos Aires dealing with Brazil meeting and
>>>>>         such and are awash in a tidal wave of communications and
>>>>>         meetings, so I at least missed all this.
>>>>>
>>>>>         By selecting these six names, including just two current CS
>>>>>         MAG members, do you wish to convey to the Secretariat and
>>>>>         DESA that you do not support the continued participation of
>>>>>         all the current CS MAG members not listed, irrespective of
>>>>>         the time and work they’ve put in, how long they’ve been
>>>>>         been on it, etc?
>>>>>
>>>>>         It seems unduly abrupt, so please note my objection as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>         Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>         On Nov 20, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>>         <jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>         On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder
>>>>>>         <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>>         <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         As said before, I do not agree to steering committee
>>>>>>>         choosing MAG nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next
>>>>>>>         steering committee's membership, and so on.... These are
>>>>>>>         serious. important issues which should have a clear,
>>>>>>>         transparent, accountable and thus legitimate process
>>>>>>>         around it. And I dont see that in place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply
>>>>>>         collected the nominations, suggested criteria that could
>>>>>>         be used to evaluate them, and forwarded them back to the
>>>>>>         main list with a recommendation.  Although your objection
>>>>>>         was noted, most others were comfortable with this process
>>>>>>         and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we
>>>>>>         decided to go ahead.  If appropriate your objection could
>>>>>>         probably be noted in some way in the letter that goes to
>>>>>>         the MAG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         *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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer
>>>>>>         movement knowledge hub
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         @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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are
>>>>>>         strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at
>>>>>>         your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     --
>>>>>     Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>     Coordinator
>>>>>     The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>     MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>     P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>     The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>     Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>     Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>     Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>     Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>     /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>>>>>     www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>>>>>     www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>
>>>>>     www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
>>>>>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>>>>     http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>     /www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>>     <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>     *
>>>>>     *
>>>>>
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Professor Marianne Franklin
>>>     Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>>>     Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>>>     Goldsmiths, University of London
>>>     Dept. of Media & Communications
>>>     New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>>>     Tel:+44 20 7919 7072  <tel:%2B44%2020%207919%207072>
>>>     <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>  <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>>>     @GloComm
>>>     https://twitter.com/GloComm
>>>     http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
>>>
>>> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
>>>     www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> <http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>>     @netrights
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>>
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> @joana_varon
>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
>
>


-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh
kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Nov 20 16:25:41 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:25:41 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Big Data - big problem
Message-ID: <E38EB920FCEB413F89F901A784F60D34@Toshiba>

I think corporate and governmental surveillance and unregulated use of our personal data is a huge issue. This article from Bruce Schneier gives a lot of good background on how bad things are - in an earlier essay he likened the problem to the pollution of the early industrial era which went unregulated until it became a massive uncontrollable problem. 

We really do have to get on top of this one - and unfortunately large internet corporations whose profit is dependent on using our personal data and governments of differing political persuasions who are part of alliances that give unregulated permission to do anything to their surveillance communities are not going to help. Big problem...

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/20/opinion/schneier-stalker-economy/index.html


Ian Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/31c5ae6a/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov  1 22:10:27 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:10:27 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Transparency issue: private list with open archives
In-Reply-To: <BEEEF211-FE46-475B-A361-A34CAF55E3DA@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <3fe1-52745f00-4f-38390c80@170626355>

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 07:04 MYT, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> Understanding the strongly-held differences of opinion on the issue of public and private lists, we would like to propose a compromise by moving sensitive discussions to the "private at lists.bestbits.net" list, but opening up the archives of that list.  The interim steering committee would use our best efforts to limit subscribers to civil society.
>
> This accords with the understanding that was broadly reached at the meeting in Bali (admittedly, it was not a formal decision) that some discussions about a civil society strategy could take place on a list that was not open to governments or corporations, just as those constituencies have meetings to decide their own approach to issues.
>
> As with discussions on the ec at lists.bestbits.net, we will make a point of reporting back to the main list.  This would include any calls for action and any documents produced.  In any case, it would remain open to anyone to share strategies on the main open list or discuss what they want.

Just as I am boarding a flight, a quick follow-up to reiterate that this is just a proposal, and Deborah or someone else from the interim steering committee may follow up while I'm away with some other options.  I was not intending this to be read as a definitive proclamation.

--
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.


From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 03:05:26 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:05:26 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received
Message-ID: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

In the framework of:
- 1Net
- Brazil commitees
- Future collaboration of Civil Society  on representations

Ian Peter has made a proposal that has circulated in the past 24 hours
among the coordinating/steering/leadership of different platforms and
networks.

===
Here is the original proposal

My first suggestion is everyone agrees to formation of a Steering
Committee. I suggest it be composed of one rep from each of

APC
Best Bits
Diplo
NCSG
IGC


I think you should empower the Civil Society Steering Committee (CSSC)  to
make such nominations as are necessary, consulting as appropriate.

This seems to have a fair amount of agreement – and does have the advantage
of allowing CS to speak in a more united fashion in various discussions.

====

Marianne has remarked that IRP needs to be on this as it is a coalition of
its own.

What do you think/say?

Listening.

Nnenna
[Posting as a BB Steering member]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/4f77f064/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 21 03:24:11 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:24:11 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <09ea01cee609$7f6b5dc0$7e421940$@gmail.com>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk> <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com> <09ea01cee609$7f6b5dc0$7e421940$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E42888A1-42F3-4F46-986A-89E6E9480B74@ciroap.org>

On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:59 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately in the post-Snowden world “trust us” is not a sufficient answer—only transparency and accountability are.
>  
> As long as the Steering Committee is self-appointed through murky procedures and as long as this self-appointed (Interim or no) Steering Committee chooses to act (and present itself to the world) as though it has a mandate to act on behalf of the BB grouping whatever that might be, there will necessarily and quite reasonably be a lack of trust and questions as to legitimacy.

Actually the only such questions are coming from within; we are undermining ourselves, and to my mind unnecessarily so.  Snowden did not tar civil society with the same brush as the NSA.  We have presented an interim procedure for democratising the steering committee in Bali, which remains open for discussion and will be implemented soon once finalised, but to rush its finalisation now at a time when leadership is required would be pointless and would simply remove us from some very important processes that are rolling along with or without us.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/8230155b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/8230155b/attachment.sig>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 21 03:45:05 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:45:05 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org>

To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:

Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil society representatives, we should simply support the continuation of all civil society representatives who have served less than a three-year term.
But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative support has been received for the self-nominations of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma, Bertrand de la Chapelle to fill them.
Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are yet to receive affirmative support.

So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying the above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see below).

On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:42 pm, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:

> But my questions remain.   Since others knew to respond I assume a CFP with this info was issued, but I missed it and can’t find it in the BB archives (apologies if it turns out this is simply because I’m in a crowded noisy hallway and can’t focus).   So again, could you tell when was the call for nominations, what was the deadline for submission, and what is the process from here?

The general nomination procedure was raised at the Bali meeting and was in development on the wiki for a while before that, but the proposal to test it out for the MAG was in the thread at http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-11/msg00130.html.  Since then we've clarified that the steering committee isn't selecting anyone, just facilitating the process.

> Looking through other messages from today, I agree with Mawaki that when BB (and IGC, and anyone else) sends the secretariat nominations, this should be accompanied by a clear explanation of who’s making the nominations on what basis and the nomination procedure that’s been followed so they have context for what they’re looking at.

So this may mean that a joint/combined nomination with the IGC is off the table, but we can still do a joint civil society letter explaining the different processes and nominees.  That's seems fine to me - we realised that a combined nomination was ambitious, and the IGC's process is pretty self-contained.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/db7e3a5a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/db7e3a5a/attachment.sig>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Nov 21 04:59:33 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:59:33 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating people to different steering groups.

I'm interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the summit itself.

Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in President Rouseff's speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet governance, I am interested in working on the following:


*         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

*         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I'm concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I'll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.

I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and I'm assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage I'm asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put together submissions along these lines.

       Reminding you of the proposed work plan - I'm volunteering for item 3 and to contribute to item 2.

       OUTPUTS

 1.  Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
 2.  Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
 3.  Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:
    *   Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
    *   Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

TIMELINE

 1.  Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
 2.  First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
 3.  Feedback from main list by January 31.
 4.  Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014.



Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/087a40d0/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Nov 21 05:32:25 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:32:25 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>

Andrew

On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating 
> people to different steering groups.
>
> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the 
> summit itself.
>
> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in 
> President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet 
> governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>
> ·Preparing a submission on reforminginternet governance that keep the 
> dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is 
> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening 
> the IGF)
>
> ·Preparing a submission on the first high level principle dealing with 
> free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy 
> protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression 
> unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is 
> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few 
> months and I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  
> So at this stage I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining 
> an offlist group to put together submissions along these lines.
>

Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>
>     Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for 
> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>
> OUTPUTS
>
>  1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>     participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>  2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco
>     Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>  3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>     multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>      1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>         Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>      2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>         and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>
>
> TIMELINE
>
>  1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>  2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>  3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>  4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>     March 1, 2014.
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org*
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/202f4cde/attachment.htm>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Thu Nov 21 06:09:17 2013
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:39:17 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <E42888A1-42F3-4F46-986A-89E6E9480B74@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk> <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com> <09ea01cee609$7f6b5dc0$7e421940$@gmail.com> <E42888A1-42F3-4F46-986A-89E6E9480B74@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <528DE9DD.4040605@ITforChange.net>

On 11/21/2013 01:54 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:59 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately in the post-Snowden world “trust us” is not a 
>> sufficient answer—only transparency and accountability are.
>> As long as the Steering Committee is self-appointed through murky 
>> procedures and as long as this self-appointed (Interim or no) 
>> Steering Committee chooses to act (and present itself to the world) 
>> as though it has a mandate to act on behalf of the BB grouping 
>> whatever that might be, there will necessarily and quite reasonably 
>> be a lack of trust and questions as to legitimacy.
>
> Actually the only such questions are coming from within; we are 
> undermining ourselves, and to my mind unnecessarily so.

Jeremy,

when questions regarding trust/credibility come from within, even more 
reason to address it. Do you want to wait till outsiders (who are 
perhaps relatively ignorant of the black box nature of the steering 
committee working) raise this issue and sink BB credibility completely?

>  Snowden did not tar civil society with the same brush as the NSA.  We 
> have presented an interim procedure for democratising the steering 
> committee in Bali, which remains open for discussion and will be 
> implemented soon once finalised, but to rush its finalisation now at a 
> time when leadership is required would be pointless and would simply 
> remove us from some very important processes that are rolling along 
> with or without us.
you are making an assumption that this is binary - either we engage with 
substantive issues or focus on process. Is is really possible to 
separate the two so easily... What if BB's valuable contributions are 
seen as tainted by 'murky' process later and hence not given their due?

regards,
Guru


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/8f46adea/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 21 06:37:30 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:07:30 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net>

Andrew

I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not 
quite sure that is a good thing to do.

Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of 
the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them 
directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation  
which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people 
need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious 
personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group 
responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have 
let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be 
able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email 
on the issue.

my responses below...

On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
>

I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are 
engaging in it....

> that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick 
> up on this and set out my own thoughts.
>

You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' 
public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed 
interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that 
developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the 
CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few 
countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the 
floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD 
developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were 
all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important 
position of developing countries against developed country based 
"global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being  
dismissed  in such a summary and disdainful manner.


> Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy 
> making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the 
> thread at some point – but it passed me by.  People have been 
> supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder 
> ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - 
> certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach 
> has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case 
> requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything 
> binding.
>
> With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not 
> global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote 
> human rights and democracy in Europe.  It has a specific geographic 
> focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states 
> to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the 
> norms.  It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American 
> Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in 
> their membership).  In the field of human rights protection, with the 
> court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data 
> protection provisions have also been helpful.  Human rights is part of 
> its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one 
> I know claims it to be.
>
> The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the 
> internet
>

What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and 
who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet 
policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA 
oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 
percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such 
loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, 
developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse 
by calling it various names as your email is full of...)

> is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal 
> we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights 
> Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent 
> human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where 
> positive policies are pursued. Of course the HRC has done good work – 
> but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line.  In the 
> most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all 
> elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad 
> human rights movement are comforted by that.
>

Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance 
and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its 
insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, 
and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers 
to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We 
cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you 
mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing 
countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed 
arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in 
global IG space,
>
> My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want 
> to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we 
> can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports 
> democracy and human rights.
>

I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are 
most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power 
for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much 
beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural 
issues...

> Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that 
> though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process.   
> I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with 
> it and those who want something else get on with that.  It’s a big 
> world and there’s room for all opinions.
>

IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory 
democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much 
here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who 
suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory 
Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India 
proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually 
were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to 
strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you 
may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 
'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving 
power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, 
including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would 
amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach....

Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus 
MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move 
elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work.....

> I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a 
> way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation 
> about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the 
> sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven 
> away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go 
> the way of the IGC.)  I think we have thoroughly aired the different 
> views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do 
> the work we each want to do
>

No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism 
and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask 
you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual 
decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct 
question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can 
clarify...  If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am 
as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this 
question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS 
brigade or the MList one...


> though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they 
> want.
>

Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put 
my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC 
meeting, and also as we move forward.

>   I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I 
> will be supporting something  different to you.
>

As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov 
model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be 
able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, 
then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders 
should be an important part of all  pre decision making processes, which 
for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 
'something different', may I know whether in your model business will 
have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters...
>
> In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy 
> leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old 
> voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years 
> or more.
>

How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views 
:). It is really ingenious of you.

parminder
>
> So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of 
> Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what 
> you send
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org*
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* 19 November 2013 14:13
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> *Subject:* [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of 
> India to the WGEC
>
> On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>     Dear Anja
>
>     Thank you for this.
>
>     I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could
>     not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed
>     this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change
>     proposal.
>
>     Could it be differences between ministries?
>
>
> No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document 
> with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to 
> the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my 
> understanding that this position was developed and approved by an 
> inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of 
> all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level 
> clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest...
>
> While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets 
> demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good 
> people of the world seem to live and breathe.....
>
> Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is 
> just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world 
> that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information 
> and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest 
> countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with 
> it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 
> 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy 
> and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.)
>
> Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a 
> political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely 
> unable to understand how people and organisations that rather 
> enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy 
> making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever 
> it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from 
> the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start 
> getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever 
> protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the 
> such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when 
> these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding 
> all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That 
> would be something for civil society to be protesting about....
>
> Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the 
> multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country 
> institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, 
> no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil 
> society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will 
> be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive 
> decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. 
> Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil 
> society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to 
> stand there looking a bit sheepish!
>
> So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put 
> this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to 
> developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new 
> institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in 
> the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of 
> re-distributing all kinds of power?
>
> I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given 
> the answer to the above question - why these double standards between 
> developed countries and the developing ones?  Why does the meaning of 
> multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an 
> institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's 
> CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model 
> presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any 
> takers?
>
> Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of 
> global IG...
>
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, 
> the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully 
> cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.
>
> Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific 
> matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works 
> will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are 
> just a but left out of the loop.
>
> But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, 
> including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder 
> participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly 
> put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip 
> service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable 
> also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their 
> speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by 
> multi-stakeholder IG.
>
> That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear 
> commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of 
> proposed solutions.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>
>     As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these
>     lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for
>     EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here:
>     http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/
>     )
>
>     Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP
>     proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of
>     Communications and Information Technology, in particular had
>     become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder
>     models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the
>     WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a
>     proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established
>     under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.
>
>     Comments most welcome.
>
>     Best,
>     Anja
>
>
>       Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to
>       take over the governance of the Internet?
>
>
>           by Anja Kovacs
>
>     /Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
>     Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. /
>
>     In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
>     (WGEC) <http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, which met for
>     the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government
>     recommended the following:
>
>         The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a
>         multilateral body for formulation of international
>         Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should
>         include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and
>         international organisations in advisory capacity within their
>         respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG
>         report. Such body should also develop globally applicable
>         principles on public policy issues associated with the
>         coordination and management of critical Internet resources.
>
>     Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active
>     within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly
>     disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee
>     for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this
>     proposal thus seems to have been revived.
>
>     Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table
>     is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to
>     endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet
>     governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense
>     of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under
>     consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory
>     role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed
>     to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these
>     definitions - especially where the role of civil society is
>     concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised
>     widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the
>     debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said
>     nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal.
>
>     Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC
>     only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian
>     civil society representative. The latter took with this a position
>     quite radically different from other Indian members of civil
>     society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of
>     global civil society in this field, who believe that a
>     multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward.
>
>     Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that
>     there might at times be space for multilateralism within this
>     multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group
>     comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the
>     right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new
>     treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over
>     as negotiating treaties is their job.
>
>     However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones
>     currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in
>     a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders,
>     including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to
>     go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the
>     necessity of government dominance in the policy process,
>     irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement
>     only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other
>     stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it
>     also leaves the Internet policy making process much more
>     vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics.
>
>     The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible
>     also for developing globally applicable principles on public
>     policy issues associated with the coordination and management of
>     critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this
>     regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical
>     Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN
>     that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder
>     in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern
>     the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied
>     without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved
>     in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said,
>     conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.
>
>     The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations
>     on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation
>     contained in the Tunis Agenda.
>
>     India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body
>     that would privilege governments in the making of international
>     Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic
>     consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been
>     established by the government precisely for such purposes in
>     August of this year.
>
>     For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a
>     surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of
>     Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed
>     over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance
>     of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and
>     his own commitment to this model.
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>     The Internet Democracy Project
>
>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org  <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org  <http://www.apc.org>
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/a9d7a6e9/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Nov 21 07:19:43 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:19:43 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme.
I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done.
My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.
When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights.
Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are.  I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.
I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months.  My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely  comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.  But I’m looking forward to others’ views.
And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not.  It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.  We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.


Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC

Andrew

I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.

Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue.

my responses below...
On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel

I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it....


that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts.


You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being  dismissed  in such a summary and disdainful manner.



Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by.  People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding.

With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe.  It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms.  It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership).  In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful.  Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be.

The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet

What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...)


is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued.  Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line.  In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that.

Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space,


My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights.

I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues...


Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process.   I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that.  It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions.

IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach....

Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work.....



I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.)  I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do

No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify...  If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one...



though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want.

Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward.


  I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something  different to you.

As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all  pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters...


In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more.

How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you.

parminder

So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC


On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Dear Anja

Thank you for this.

I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal.

Could it be differences between ministries?

No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest...

While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe.....

Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.)

Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about....

Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish!

So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power?

I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones?  Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers?

Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG...


parminder





I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.

Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop.

But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG.

That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions.

Anriette


On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ )

Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.

Comments most welcome.
Best,
Anja
Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet?
by Anja Kovacs

Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case.

In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following:

The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.

Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived.

Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal.

Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward.

Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job.

However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics.

The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.

The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda.

India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year.

For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model.



--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>




--

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

anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>

executive director, association for progressive communications

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

po box 29755, melville 2109

south africa

tel/fax +27 11 726 1692


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/8e50789e/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 21 07:21:57 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:51:57 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Big Data - big problem
In-Reply-To: <E38EB920FCEB413F89F901A784F60D34@Toshiba>
References: <E38EB920FCEB413F89F901A784F60D34@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <528DFAE5.4060107@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 21 November 2013 02:55 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> I think corporate and governmental surveillance and unregulated use of 
> our personal data is a huge issue. This article from Bruce Schneier 
> gives a lot of good background on how bad things are - in an earlier 
> essay he likened the problem to the pollution of the early industrial 
> era which went unregulated until it became a massive uncontrollable 
> problem.
> We really do have to get on top of this one - and unfortunately large 
> internet corporations whose profit is dependent on using our personal 
> data and governments of differing political persuasions who are part 
> of alliances that give unregulated permission to do anything to their 
> surveillance communities are not going to help. Big problem...
> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/20/opinion/schneier-stalker-economy/index.html

Shows how meaningless the term 'self regulation' is, which was bandied 
around for so long, and many still do...

Also shows why big business so desperately wants a seat at the decision 
making table of Internet related policies, lest someone tries to spoil 
its party.

Civil society must seriously consider what  they are contributing to in 
asking for business to be given a seat at the table for deciding 
Internet related policies.... And not push away such debates simply as 
seeking multi-lateralism. We must amend the terms of the debate and set 
up progressive and democratic frameworks to discuss IG.

parminder


> Ian Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/06659281/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Nov 21 07:27:42 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 23:27:42 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch> <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <2EF4B072E3094C5A8472306C86755121@Toshiba>

late at night here but as a quick response. I think you should think very carefully about supporting the continuation of all current civil society members of MAG

Several are completely unknown to either Best Bits or IGC, some are quite inactive, some represent small interest groups only. I think it is a mistake to support all existing CS MAG people.

Ian

From: Jeremy Malcolm 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 7:45 PM
To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:

  a.. Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil society representatives, we should simply support the continuation of all civil society representatives who have served less than a three-year term. 
  b.. But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative support has been received for the self-nominations of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma, Bertrand de la Chapelle to fill them. 
  c.. Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are yet to receive affirmative support.

So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying the above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see below).

On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:42 pm, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:


  But my questions remain.   Since others knew to respond I assume a CFP with this info was issued, but I missed it and can’t find it in the BB archives (apologies if it turns out this is simply because I’m in a crowded noisy hallway and can’t focus).   So again, could you tell when was the call for nominations, what was the deadline for submission, and what is the process from here?

The general nomination procedure was raised at the Bali meeting and was in development on the wiki for a while before that, but the proposal to test it out for the MAG was in the thread at http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-11/msg00130.html.  Since then we've clarified that the steering committee isn't selecting anyone, just facilitating the process.


  Looking through other messages from today, I agree with Mawaki that when BB (and IGC, and anyone else) sends the secretariat nominations, this should be accompanied by a clear explanation of who’s making the nominations on what basis and the nomination procedure that’s been followed so they have context for what they’re looking at.

So this may mean that a joint/combined nomination with the IGC is off the table, but we can still do a joint civil society letter explaining the different processes and nominees.  That's seems fine to me - we realised that a combined nomination was ambitious, and the IGC's process is pretty self-contained.

-- 

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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/b6b6d0fc/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Fri Nov  1 23:19:01 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 23:19:01 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Transparency issue: private list with open archives
In-Reply-To: <3fe1-52745f00-4f-38390c80@170626355>
References: <3fe1-52745f00-4f-38390c80@170626355>
Message-ID: <D9721237-1EAD-4CE2-8A6A-E18B47C85F28@acm.org>

Hi,

Some questions that occur to me about this compromise:

- how is 'sensitive discussion' defined?  

- Will a new sensitive discussion topic be announced with an explanation of why it has been defined as sensitive?  This would allow for additional bona-fide civil society participants to joint the secret group.

- how are civil society bona-fides defined and 
- what degree of purity is required?

- would the reporting back include a Chatham House rule restricted explanation of the discussion behind the decisions, once they are de-classified?

- will the list of people participating in the secret list be made public?


thanks

avri


On 1 Nov 2013, at 22:10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On Saturday, November 2, 2013 07:04 MYT, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
>> Understanding the strongly-held differences of opinion on the issue of public and private lists, we would like to propose a compromise by moving sensitive discussions to the "private at lists.bestbits.net" list, but opening up the archives of that list.  The interim steering committee would use our best efforts to limit subscribers to civil society.
>> 
>> This accords with the understanding that was broadly reached at the meeting in Bali (admittedly, it was not a formal decision) that some discussions about a civil society strategy could take place on a list that was not open to governments or corporations, just as those constituencies have meetings to decide their own approach to issues.
>> 
>> As with discussions on the ec at lists.bestbits.net, we will make a point of reporting back to the main list.  This would include any calls for action and any documents produced.  In any case, it would remain open to anyone to share strategies on the main open list or discuss what they want.
> 
> Just as I am boarding a flight, a quick follow-up to reiterate that this is just a proposal, and Deborah or someone else from the interim steering committee may follow up while I'm away with some other options.  I was not intending this to be read as a definitive proclamation.
> 
> --
> 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.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/3bc63eec/attachment.sig>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Nov 21 07:28:13 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:28:13 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D04253@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

I’m going to try and bring in Article 19 on his – maybe we could all get together in London before Xmas?

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org]
Sent: 21 November 2013 10:32
To: Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Brazil summit

Andrew
On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating people to different steering groups.

I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the summit itself.

Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet governance, I am interested in working on the following:


·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.

I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put together submissions along these lines.

Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.


       Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for item 3 and to contribute to item 2.

       OUTPUTS

 1.  Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
 2.  Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
 3.  Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:
    *   Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
    *   Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

TIMELINE

 1.  Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
 2.  First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
 3.  Feedback from main list by January 31.
 4.  Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014.



Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org




--



Matthew Shears

Director and Representative

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

+44 (0) 771 247 2987

Skype: mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/81558129/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Nov 21 07:31:13 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:31:13 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528DFD11.9070602@cdt.org>

Nnenna

I think this is a good way forward on an interim basis.  While I 
personally like relatively informal processes for agreeing individuals 
for particular roles, I think many feel that BB does need some more 
elaborated process for the selection of persons to specific roles for 
the future.   Hence my "on an interim basis" comment.

If Jeremy is amenable I am comfortable with him assuming this steering 
committee (CSSC) role for BB.

Matthew



On 21/11/2013 08:05, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> In the framework of:
> - 1Net
> - Brazil commitees
> - Future collaboration of Civil Society  on representations
>
> Ian Peter has made a proposal that has circulated in the past 24 hours 
> among the coordinating/steering/leadership of different platforms and 
> networks.
>
> ===
> Here is the original proposal
> My first suggestion is everyone agrees to formation of a Steering 
> Committee. I suggest it be composed of one rep from each of
> APC
> Best Bits
> Diplo
> NCSG
> IGC
>
> I think you should empower the Civil Society Steering Committee 
> (CSSC)  to make such nominations as are necessary, consulting as 
> appropriate.
> This seems to have a fair amount of agreement – and does have the 
> advantage of allowing CS to speak in a more united fashion in various 
> discussions.
>
> ====
>
> Marianne has remarked that IRP needs to be on this as it is a 
> coalition of its own.
>
> What do you think/say?
>
> Listening.
>
> Nnenna
> [Posting as a BB Steering member]
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/42eeeabf/attachment.htm>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 08:25:48 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:25:48 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxivXJ2-B-_RGrm1y3ryuznx7-nhf8fLxC9zkAVmXgzhEg@mail.gmail.com>

<cc list trimmed>

Andrew,

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andrew Puddephatt
<Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this
> particular theme.
>
> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to
> support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a constructive
> platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other
> networks have done.

+1 I saw no "shut upittyneess" in your original post.

>
> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that
> I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as
> appropriate for global policy making.


PJS has been going on about this for a long time. You are correct, no
one is defending the OECD as a MS body or even a policy making body
that CS should be behind.  It seems to be a strawman argument he trots
out from time to time.


If that’s not what you meant I
> apologise for misunderstanding you.
>
> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights
> Council – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in
> the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that
> leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment
> of human rights.

Agreed.

>
<snip>

> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people,
> accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not.
> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.  We all
> have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about
> our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.

+1

Regards,

McTim

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 21 09:04:11 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:34:11 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on 
> this particular theme.
>
> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life 
> to support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a 
> constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not 
> spiral down as other networks have done.
>

It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta 
constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and  you 
still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you 
want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff 
of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man 
argument...

No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive 
points....

> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but 
> that I have not seem anyone _in civil society_ defend those 
> institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not 
> what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.
>

You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and 
norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber 
crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you 
criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do 
these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels.

Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy 
activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... 
When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the 
number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write 
one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my 
question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending 
them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and 
endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber 
convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready 
to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The 
London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed 
countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary 
and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally 
significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in 
the process. But did we say that it is not right to not treat all 
countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep 
coming from the global South....


> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human 
> Rights Council
>
No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I 
asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I 
cant see HRC being such a body....

> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the 
> current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that 
> leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast 
> detriment of human rights.
>

The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global 
internet related policies....
>
> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are 
> satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they 
> are.  I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that 
> recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and 
> I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in 
> its DNA.
>
> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with 
> others in the next few months.  My preference is for a dispersed 
> arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will 
> likely  comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and 
> national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.
>

On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this 
is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and 
CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and 
facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies.

> But I’m looking forward to others’views.
>
> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to 
> people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that 
> they do not.
>

That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just 
discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder

> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We 
> all have an obligation to build this community, and this means 
> thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our 
> rights to speak freely.
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org*
>
> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* 21 November 2013 11:38
> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government 
> of India to the WGEC
>
> Andrew
>
> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not 
> quite sure that is a good thing to do.
>
> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings 
> of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of 
> them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my 
> organisation  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public 
> space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart 
> from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think 
> IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which 
> they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your 
> view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below 
> being my very first email on the issue.
>
> my responses below...
>
> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
>     I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
>
>
> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who 
> are engaging in it....
>
>
> that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick 
> up on this and set out my own thoughts.
>
>
> You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' 
> public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed 
> interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that 
> developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the 
> CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few 
> countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took 
> the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to 
> OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they 
> were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important 
> position of developing countries against developed country based 
> "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being  
> dismissed  in such a summary and disdainful manner.
>
>
>
> Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy 
> making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the 
> thread at some point – but it passed me by.  People have been 
> supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder 
> ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - 
> certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach 
> has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case 
> requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything 
> binding.
>
> With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not 
> global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote 
> human rights and democracy in Europe.  It has a specific geographic 
> focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states 
> to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the 
> norms.  It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American 
> Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in 
> their membership).  In the field of human rights protection, with the 
> court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data 
> protection provisions have also been helpful. Human rights is part of 
> its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one 
> I know claims it to be.
>
> The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the 
> internet
>
>
> What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and 
> who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet 
> policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA 
> oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 
> percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such 
> loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, 
> developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any 
> counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...)
>
>
> is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal 
> we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights 
> Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent 
> human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where 
> positive policies are pursued.  Of course the HRC has done good work – 
> but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line.  In the 
> most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all 
> elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad 
> human rights movement are comforted by that.
>
>
> Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's 
> dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for 
> instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD 
> principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some 
> clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles 
> document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above 
> countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that 
> the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of 
> repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any 
> day take the cake in global IG space,
>
> My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want 
> to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we 
> can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports 
> democracy and human rights.
>
>
> I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with 
> are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto 
> power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go 
> much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and 
> cultural issues...
>
>
> Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that 
> though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process.   
> I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with 
> it and those who want something else get on with that.  It’s a big 
> world and there’s room for all opinions.
>
>
> IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory 
> democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much 
> here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we 
> who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile 
> Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the 
> famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements 
> and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree 
> to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas 
> you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing 
> then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs 
> giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial 
> role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that 
> would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach....
>
> Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus 
> MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move 
> elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work.....
>
>
> I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a 
> way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation 
> about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the 
> sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven 
> away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go 
> the way of the IGC.)  I think we have thoroughly aired the different 
> views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do 
> the work we each want to do
>
>
> No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism 
> and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask 
> you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual 
> decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct 
> question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can 
> clarify...  If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am 
> as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this 
> question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the 
> MS brigade or the MList one...
>
>
>
> though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they 
> want.
>
>
> Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I 
> put my side of what I think were and are important issues following 
> the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward.
>
>
> I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will 
> be supporting something  different to you.
>
>
> As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an 
> inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps 
> will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public 
> policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all 
> stakeholders should be an important part of all  pre decision making 
> processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, 
> you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model 
> business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public 
> policy matters...
>
> In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy 
> leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old 
> voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years 
> or more.
>
>
> How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my 
> views :). It is really ingenious of you.
>
> parminder
>
> So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of 
> Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what 
> you send
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org*
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* 19 November 2013 14:13
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 
> &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
> *Subject:* [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of 
> India to the WGEC
>
> On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>     Dear Anja
>
>     Thank you for this.
>
>     I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could
>     not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed
>     this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change
>     proposal.
>
>     Could it be differences between ministries?
>
>
> No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document 
> with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to 
> the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my 
> understanding that this position was developed and approved by an 
> inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of 
> all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level 
> clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest...
>
> While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets 
> demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good 
> people of the world seem to live and breathe.....
>
> Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is 
> just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world 
> that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information 
> and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest 
> countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with 
> it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 
> 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy 
> and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.)
>
> Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a 
> political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely 
> unable to understand how people and organisations that rather 
> enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy 
> making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever 
> it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from 
> the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start 
> getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever 
> protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the 
> such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when 
> these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding 
> all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That 
> would be something for civil society to be protesting about....
>
> Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the 
> multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country 
> institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, 
> no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil 
> society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will 
> be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive 
> decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. 
> Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil 
> society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to 
> stand there looking a bit sheepish!
>
> So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put 
> this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to 
> developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new 
> institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in 
> the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of 
> re-distributing all kinds of power?
>
> I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given 
> the answer to the above question - why these double standards between 
> developed countries and the developing ones?  Why does the meaning of 
> multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an 
> institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's 
> CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model 
> presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any 
> takers?
>
> Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of 
> global IG...
>
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, 
> the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully 
> cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.
>
> Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific 
> matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works 
> will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are 
> just a but left out of the loop.
>
> But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, 
> including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder 
> participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly 
> put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip 
> service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable 
> also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their 
> speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by 
> multi-stakeholder IG.
>
> That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear 
> commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of 
> proposed solutions.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>
>     As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these
>     lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for
>     EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here:
>     http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/
>     )
>
>     Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP
>     proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of
>     Communications and Information Technology, in particular had
>     become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder
>     models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the
>     WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a
>     proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established
>     under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.
>
>     Comments most welcome.
>
>     Best,
>     Anja
>
>
>       Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to
>       take over the governance of the Internet?
>
>
>           by Anja Kovacs
>
>     /Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
>     Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. /
>
>     In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
>     (WGEC) <http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, which met for
>     the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government
>     recommended the following:
>
>         The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a
>         multilateral body for formulation of international
>         Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should
>         include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and
>         international organisations in advisory capacity within their
>         respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG
>         report. Such body should also develop globally applicable
>         principles on public policy issues associated with the
>         coordination and management of critical Internet resources.
>
>     Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active
>     within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly
>     disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee
>     for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this
>     proposal thus seems to have been revived.
>
>     Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table
>     is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to
>     endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet
>     governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense
>     of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under
>     consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory
>     role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed
>     to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these
>     definitions - especially where the role of civil society is
>     concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised
>     widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the
>     debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said
>     nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal.
>
>     Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC
>     only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian
>     civil society representative. The latter took with this a position
>     quite radically different from other Indian members of civil
>     society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of
>     global civil society in this field, who believe that a
>     multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward.
>
>     Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that
>     there might at times be space for multilateralism within this
>     multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group
>     comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the
>     right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new
>     treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over
>     as negotiating treaties is their job.
>
>     However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones
>     currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in
>     a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders,
>     including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to
>     go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the
>     necessity of government dominance in the policy process,
>     irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement
>     only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other
>     stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it
>     also leaves the Internet policy making process much more
>     vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics.
>
>     The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible
>     also for developing globally applicable principles on public
>     policy issues associated with the coordination and management of
>     critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this
>     regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical
>     Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN
>     that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder
>     in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern
>     the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied
>     without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved
>     in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said,
>     conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.
>
>     The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations
>     on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation
>     contained in the Tunis Agenda.
>
>     India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body
>     that would privilege governments in the making of international
>     Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic
>     consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been
>     established by the government precisely for such purposes in
>     August of this year.
>
>     For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a
>     surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of
>     Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed
>     over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance
>     of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and
>     his own commitment to this model.
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>     The Internet Democracy Project
>
>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org  <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org  <http://www.apc.org>
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/66b3c940/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 09:05:13 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:05:13 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com>

As the host/enabler of the global Community Informatics network which
incorporates some 1500+ practitioners, researchers and policy folks
concerned with the grassroots use of ICTs I think that I/we should be
represented/participating in that Steering Committee and subsequent
discussions. 

 

I see no one else on this steering committee who would effectively present
the position of grassroots ICT users and ICT enabled marginalized
communities and I feel it necessary to insist that their voices have a
chance to be heard in these discussions.

 

I believe that our network has as much legitimacy as other members of this
steering committee, with rather larger numbers and with significantly
broader representation than most.

 

Thanks,

 

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:05 AM
To: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received

 

Dear all,

In the framework of:

- 1Net

- Brazil commitees

- Future collaboration of Civil Society  on representations

Ian Peter has made a proposal that has circulated in the past 24 hours among
the coordinating/steering/leadership of different platforms and networks.

===

Here is the original proposal

 

My first suggestion is everyone agrees to formation of a Steering Committee.
I suggest it be composed of one rep from each of

 

APC

Best Bits

Diplo

NCSG

IGC

 

 

I think you should empower the Civil Society Steering Committee (CSSC)  to
make such nominations as are necessary, consulting as appropriate.

 

This seems to have a fair amount of agreement - and does have the advantage
of allowing CS to speak in a more united fashion in various discussions.

====

Marianne has remarked that IRP needs to be on this as it is a coalition of
its own.

What do you think/say?

Listening.

Nnenna

[Posting as a BB Steering member]

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/40e03b8e/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 09:05:13 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:05:13 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] FW: Moving the Community Informatics Network to a
 Different Stage?
Message-ID: <0f7a01cee6c2$b32121e0$196365a0$@gmail.com>

FYI, (I sent this out to the CI network yesterday morning...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:54 AM
To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net;
cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vancouvercommunity.net;
ci-for-older-persons at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-indigenous at lists.knet.ca
Subject: Moving the Community Informatics Network to a Different Stage?

CI colleagues and friends,

As those of you who have been on the CI lists for a while know I've been
concerned to link community informatics/grassroots ICT issues and our
network into larger global (and on occasion national) policy issues.

The next two years will be highly important ones for the future of the
Internet (Governance) and of direct impact on grassroots ICT users in both
Developed and Less Developed Countries. The World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) will have a 10 year meeting (and perhaps Summit) in 2015, the
Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals will both
have high level (perhaps Summit) meetings (likely in 2014) and issues around
long-term Internet Governance will, post-Snowden be the subject of a variety
of meetings including one coming up very quickly in Brazil next April.

Since most of those processes/meetings are organized to include the range of
"stakeholders" there is a seat at those tables for governments, the
technical community and civil society.

The "Technical" seat at that table is occupied by representatives of those
who have a long standing role in managing the technical infrastructure of
the Internet. 

The "Civil Society" seat is for the most part occupied by those with a long
term (and frequently professional) interest in civil society/NGO activities.
The range of representation and even the linkages of the civil society
representatives into the larger community of non-governmental, non-business
Internet users is a surprisingly narrow one.  As a result the range of
issues that they are articulating is for the most part an equally narrow one
and tends to focus on "human rights" issues (and within that primarily "free
expression") where for a variety of reasons funding (primarily from US based
foundations) is available.

Of course, human rights and free expression on the Internet are of
particular importance.  However, from a community informatics perspective
other issues--such as how ICTs are used to support community empowerment,
local social and economic development, ICTs as a support for Indigenous
peoples, and issues of social justice and equity may be equally or more
important.  For the most part those issues are either under-represented or
absent altogether from these high level, framework creating policy
discussions. 

As a virtual network, we/CI are currently some 1500 strong representing all
corners of the world and a very wide range of grassroots activists and
practitioners, academics and researchers and those with broader policy
interests.  We are I believe, the largest such grouping currently active in
the broad non-governmental/civil society ICT space.

So I have some questions:
1. are there objections to attempting to move our CI network into a more
formal (but still virtual/online) structure? If so what are they?

2. are there suggestions for how the CI network could be appropriately
structured to pursue these activities? (if there is sufficient interest a
parallel e-list will be established to pursue this discussion.)

3. are there any individuals currently within the CI network who would have
the interest and the time to put into a process of "formalizing" the network
so that it could have an appropriate and effective visibility/presence in
some or all of these venues? (anyone interested could send me an email
offline indicating their interest in this and brief bio).

Best to all,

Mike




From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 09:14:16 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:14:16 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <0fa701cee6c3$f6953d70$e3bfb850$@gmail.com>

In my previous note, although it was implied I should have been explicit in
indicating that the CI network has as a primary concern enabling the use of
ICTs at the grassroots for both current users and non-users and a great many
of those involved in the network are specifically working to bridge various
of the divides between those who have the opportunity to access and use ICTs
for self and community enablement and empowerment and those who don't..

 

M

 

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:05 AM
To: 'Nnenna Nwakanma'; '<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>'; Peter, Ian
(ian.peter at ianpeter.com)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
received

 

As the host/enabler of the global Community Informatics network which
incorporates some 1500+ practitioners, researchers and policy folks
concerned with the grassroots use of ICTs I think that I/we should be
represented/participating in that Steering Committee and subsequent
discussions. 

 

I see no one else on this steering committee who would effectively present
the position of grassroots ICT users and ICT enabled marginalized
communities and I feel it necessary to insist that their voices have a
chance to be heard in these discussions.

 

I believe that our network has as much legitimacy as other members of this
steering committee, with rather larger numbers and with significantly
broader representation than most.

 

Thanks,

 

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:05 AM
To: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received

 

Dear all,

In the framework of:

- 1Net

- Brazil commitees

- Future collaboration of Civil Society  on representations

Ian Peter has made a proposal that has circulated in the past 24 hours among
the coordinating/steering/leadership of different platforms and networks.

===

Here is the original proposal

 

My first suggestion is everyone agrees to formation of a Steering Committee.
I suggest it be composed of one rep from each of

 

APC

Best Bits

Diplo

NCSG

IGC

 

 

I think you should empower the Civil Society Steering Committee (CSSC)  to
make such nominations as are necessary, consulting as appropriate.

 

This seems to have a fair amount of agreement - and does have the advantage
of allowing CS to speak in a more united fashion in various discussions.

====

Marianne has remarked that IRP needs to be on this as it is a coalition of
its own.

What do you think/say?

Listening.

Nnenna

[Posting as a BB Steering member]

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/6ed3a8ce/attachment.htm>

From andersj at elon.edu  Thu Nov 21 09:40:46 2013
From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:40:46 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Big Data - big problem
In-Reply-To: <E38EB920FCEB413F89F901A784F60D34@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CEB38426.2BC76%andersj@elon.edu>

+1, Ian.

Many of the problems were also outlined in a Pew Internet report issued in 2012. I wrote the report. You can see the report and all of the raw content here: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/2012survey/future_Big_Data_2020.xhtml  The Pew site with the report is here: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Future-of-Big-Data.aspx

Janna Anderson

Below is a short excerpt from the report that lists some of the survey respondents' criticisms of big data – keep in mind the survey was in the field in late 2011, prior to the closer scrutiny now being paid by all:
…  Some say the limitations of Big Data must be recognized

Open access to tools and data “transparency” are necessary for people to provide information checks and balances. Are they enough?

• “Big Data gives me hope about the possibilities of technology,” said Tom Hood, CEO of the Maryland Association of CPAs. “Transparency, accountability, and the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ are all possible with the advent of Big Data combined with the tools to access and analyze the data in real time.”

Richard Lowenberg, director and broadband planner for the 1st-Mile Institute, urged, “Big Data should be developed within a context of openness and improved understandings of dynamic, complex whole ecosystems. There are difficult matters that must be addressed, which will take time and support, including: public- and private-sector entities agreeing to share data; providing frequently updated meta-data; openness and transparency; cost recovery; and technical standards.”

The Internet of Things will diffuse intelligence, but lots of technical hurdles must be overcome.

• Fred Hapgood, a tech consultant who ran MIT’s Nanosystems group in the 1990s, said, “I tend to think of the Internet of Things as multiplying points of interactivity—sensors and/or actuators—throughout the social landscape. As the cost of connectivity goes down the number of these points will go up, diffusing intelligence everywhere.”

An anonymous respondent wrote, “With the right legal and normative framework, the Internet of Things should make an astounding contribution to human life. The biggest obstacles to success are technological and behavioral; we need a rapid conversion to IPv6, and we need cooperation among all stakeholders to make the Internet of Things work. We also need global standards, not just US standards and practices, which draw practical and effective lines about how such a data trove may and may not be used consistent with human rights.”

Another anonymous survey participant said, “Apparently this 'Internet of Things' idea is beginning to encourage yet another round of cow-eyed Utopian thinking. Big Data will yield some successes and a lot of failures, and most people will continue merely to muddle along, hoping not to be mugged too frequently by the well-intentioned (or not) entrepreneurs and bureaucrats who delight in trying to use this shiny new toy to fix the world.”

In the end, humans just won’t be able to keep up

• Jeff Eisenach, managing director, Navigant Economics LLC, a consulting business, formerly a senior policy expert with the US Federal Trade Commission, had this to say: “Big Data will not be so big. Most data will remain proprietary, or reside in incompatible formats and inaccessible databases where it cannot be used in 'real time.' The gap between what is theoretically possible and what is done (in terms of using real-time data to understand and forecast cultural, economic, and social phenomena) will continue to grow.”

Humans, rather than machines, will still be the most capable of extracting insight and making judgments using Big Data. Statistics can still lie.

• “By 2020, most insights and significant advances will still be the result of trained, imaginative, inquisitive, and insightful minds,” wrote Donald G. Barnes, visiting professor at Guangxi University in China.

David D. Burstein, founder of Generation18, a youth-run voter-engagement organization, said, “As long as the growth of Big Data is coupled with growth of refined curation and curators it will be an asset. Without those curators the data will become more and more plentiful, more overwhelming and [it will] confuse our political and social conversations by an overabundance of numbers that can make any point we want to make them make.”

Those who see mostly negatives share the down side

Take off the rose-colored glasses: Big Data has the potential for significant negative impacts that may be impossible to avoid. “How to Lie with the Internet of Things” will be a best-seller.

• “There is a need to think a bit more about the distribution of the harms that flow from the rise of big, medium, and little data gatherers, brokers, and users,” observed communications expert Oscar Gandy. “If ‘Big Data’ could be used primarily for social benefit, rather than the pursuit of profit (and the social-control systems that support that effort), then I could ‘sign on’ to the data-driven future and its expression through the Internet of Things.”

“We can now make catastrophic miscalculations in nanoseconds and broadcast them universally. We have lost the balance inherent in 'lag time,'” added Marcia Richards Suelzer, senior analyst at Wolters Kluwer

An anonymous survey participant wrote, “Big Data will generate misinformation and will be manipulated by people or institutions to display the findings they want. The general public will not understand the underlying conflicts and will naively trust the output. This is already happening and will only get worse as Big Data continues to evolve.” Another anonymous respondent joked, “Upside: How to Lie with the Internet of Things becomes an underground bestseller.”

We won’t have the human or technological capacity to analyze
Big Data accurately and efficiently by 2020.

• “A lot of 'Big Data' today is biased and missing context, as it's based on convenience samples or subsets,” said Dan Ness, principal research analyst at MetaFacts. “We're seeing valiant, yet misguided attempts to apply the deep datasets to things that have limited relevance or applicability. They're being stretched to answer the wrong questions. I'm optimistic that by 2020, this will be increasingly clear and there will be true information pioneers who will think outside the Big Data box and base decisions on a broader and balanced view. Instead of relying on the 'lamppost light,' they will develop and use the equivalent of focused flashlights.”

Mark Watson, senior engineer for Netflix, said, “I expect this will be quite transformative for society, though perhaps not quite in just the next eight years.”

And Christian Huitema, distinguished engineer with Microsoft, said, “It will take much more than ten years to master the extraction of actual knowledge from Big Data sets.”

Respondents are concerned about the motives of governments and corporations, the entities that have the most data and the incentive to analyze it. Manipulation and surveillance are at the heart of their Big Data agendas.

• “The world is too complicated to be usefully encompassed in such an undifferentiated Big Idea. Whose ‘Big Data’ are we talking about? Wall Street, Google, the NSA? I am small, so generally I do not like Big,” wrote John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org

An anonymous survey participant wrote, “Data aggregation is growing today for two main purposes: National security apparatus and ever-more-focused marketing (including political) databases. Neither of these are intended for the benefit of individual network users but rather look at users as either potential terrorists or as buyers of goods and services.”

Another anonymous respondent said, “Money will drive access to large data sets and the power needed to analyze and act on the results of the analysis. The end result will, in most cases, be more effective targeting of people with the goal of having them consume more goods, which I believe is a negative for society. I would not call that misuse, but I would call it a self-serving agenda.”

Another wrote, “It is unquestionably a great time to be a mathematician who is thrilled by unwieldy data sets. While many can be used in constructive, positive ways to improve life and services for many, Big Data will predominantly be used to feed people ads based on their behavior and friends, to analyze risk potential for health and other forms of insurance, and to essentially compartmentalize people and expose them more intensely to fewer and fewer things.”

The rich will profit from Big Data and the poor will not.

• Brian Harvey, a lecturer at the University of California-Berkeley, wrote, “The collection of information is going to benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor. I suppose that for a few people that counts as a positive outcome, but your two choices should have been ‘will mostly benefit the rich’ or ‘will mostly benefit the poor,’ rather than ‘good for society’ and ‘bad for society.’  There's no such thing as ‘society.’ There's only wealth and poverty, and class struggle. And yes, I know about farmers in Africa using their cell phones to track prices for produce in the big cities. That's great, but it's not enough.”

Frank Odasz, president of Lone Eagle Consulting, said, “The politics of control and the politics of appearances will continue to make the rich richer and diminish the grassroots and disenfranchised until the politics of transparency make it necessary for the top down to partner meaningfully with the bottom up in visible, measurable ways. The grassroots boom in bottom-up innovation will increasingly find new ways to self-organize as evidenced in 2011 by the Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring movements.”

Purposeful education about Big Data might include priming for the anticipation of manipulation. Maybe trust features can be built in.

• Heywood Sloane, principal at CogniPower, said, “This isn't really a question about the Internet or Big Data—it's a question about who and how much people might abuse it (or anything else), intentionally or otherwise. That is a question that is always there—thus there is a need for a countervailing forces, competition, transparency, scrutiny, and/or other ways to guard against abuse. And then be prepared to misjudge sometimes.”

“Never underestimate the stupidity and basic sinfulness of humanity,” reminded Tom Rule, educator, technology consultant, and musician based in Macon, Georgia.

Barry Parr, owner and analyst for MediaSavvy, contributed this thought: “Better information is seldom the solution to any real-world social problems. It may be the solution to lots of business problems, but it's unlikely that the benefits will accrue to the public. We're more likely to lose privacy and freedom from the rise of Big Data.”

And an anonymous respondent commented, “Data is misused today for many reasons, the solution is not to restrict the collection of data, but rather to raise the level of awareness and education about how data can be misused and how to be confident that data is being fairly represented and actually answers the questions you think it does.”

From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>
Reply-To: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:25 PM
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: [bestbits] Big Data - big problem

I think corporate and governmental surveillance and unregulated use of our personal data is a huge issue. This article from Bruce Schneier gives a lot of good background on how bad things are - in an earlier essay he likened the problem to the pollution of the early industrial era which went unregulated until it became a massive uncontrollable problem.

We really do have to get on top of this one - and unfortunately large internet corporations whose profit is dependent on using our personal data and governments of differing political persuasions who are part of alliances that give unregulated permission to do anything to their surveillance communities are not going to help. Big problem...

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/20/opinion/schneier-stalker-economy/index.html


Ian Peter


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/d1c0e3c5/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 09:59:47 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:59:47 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D04253@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D04253@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <CADFgh13NeE61ZvRj_JMN8_WPV-e7k5o4cp16nRupWnPqGUOkcA@mail.gmail.com>

I'm happy to work on the remote participation aspect of the process, that
is 1. I did stress that during the Focus Session in Bali and also during
the open mic session.

Web Foundation is keen on working on Web We Want, so the openness, freedom
and fundamental Internet principles are of interest to us.

I'm on 1 + 2 (no, not addition. dont make it 3, just 1, then 2.  lol)

Best

Nnenna


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Andrew Puddephatt
<Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:

> I’m going to try and bring in Article 19 on his – maybe we could all get
> together in London before Xmas?
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org]
> *Sent:* 21 November 2013 10:32
> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net> (
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Brazil summit
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating
> people to different steering groups.
>
>
>
> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the
> summit itself.
>
>
>
> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in
> President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet
> governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>
>
>
> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that
> keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is
> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the
> IGF)
>
> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle
> dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that
> privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of
> expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free
> expression.
>
>
>
> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is
> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and
> I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage
> I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put
> together submissions along these lines.
>
>
> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>
>
>
>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for
> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>
>
>
>        OUTPUTS
>
>    1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>    participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>    2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco
>    Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>    3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>    multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>       1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>       Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>       2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>       and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>
>
> TIMELINE
>
>    1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>    2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>    3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>    4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>    March 1, 2014.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Matthew Shears
>
> Director and Representative
>
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>
> mshears at cdt.org
>
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
>
> Skype: mshears
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/fcca9a5e/attachment.htm>

From claudio at derechosdigitales.org  Thu Nov 21 10:04:30 2013
From: claudio at derechosdigitales.org (Claudio Ruiz)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:04:30 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh13NeE61ZvRj_JMN8_WPV-e7k5o4cp16nRupWnPqGUOkcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D04253@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CADFgh13NeE61ZvRj_JMN8_WPV-e7k5o4cp16nRupWnPqGUOkcA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <151E3275-3022-4063-BF8E-CD79DC666069@derechosdigitales.org>

I can make contributions to item 2 two, however I’m a little bit constrained on time, I can’t take a lead. But I’ll do my best to collaborate. 

On Nov 21, 2013, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm happy to work on the remote participation aspect of the process, that is 1. I did stress that during the Focus Session in Bali and also during the open mic session.
> 
> Web Foundation is keen on working on Web We Want, so the openness, freedom and fundamental Internet principles are of interest to us.
> 
> I'm on 1 + 2 (no, not addition. dont make it 3, just 1, then 2.  lol)
> 
> Best
> 
> Nnenna
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> I’m going to try and bring in Article 19 on his – maybe we could all get together in London before Xmas?
> 
>  
> 
> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> 
> Executive Director
> 
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> 
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
> 
>  
> 
> From: matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org] 
> Sent: 21 November 2013 10:32
> To: Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Brazil summit
> 
>  
> 
> Andrew
> 
> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> 
> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating people to different steering groups.
> 
>  
> 
> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the summit itself.
> 
>  
> 
> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet governance, I am interested in working on the following:
> 
>  
> 
> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
> 
> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
> 
>  
> 
> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put together submissions along these lines.
> 
> 
> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
> 
> 
>      
> 
>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
> 
>  
> 
>        OUTPUTS
> 
> Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
> Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
> Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:
> Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
> Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
> 
> TIMELINE
> 
> Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
> First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
> Feedback from main list by January 31.
> Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014.
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> 
> Executive Director
> 
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> 
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/f0a2adc7/attachment.htm>

From Lea at gp-digital.org  Sat Nov  2 03:50:19 2013
From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:50:19 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] WGEC 2nd meeting - Registration for observers
Message-ID: <CE9A5EFB.C2FC%lea@global-partners.co.uk>

Dear all,

A heads up to those of you planning to attend the upcoming 2nd meeting of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (Geneva, Nov 6-8): there are only 20-25 observer seats for non-Member States which will be allocated on a first come first served basis. If you haven't registered yet, you should do so ASAP!

For more info, see this message by the WGEC Chair, Peter Major: http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=635&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=Working%20Group%20on%20Enhanced%20Cooperation%20(WGEC)

Best,
Lea


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131102/724fb9a0/attachment.htm>

From valeriab at apc.org  Thu Nov 21 10:12:01 2013
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:12:01 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>

Hi Andrew,

On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:

> Andrew
>
> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for  
>> nominating people to different steering groups.
>>
>> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to  
>> the summit itself.
>>
>> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured  
>> in President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for  
>> internet governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>>
>> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance  
>> that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder  
>> participation (which is likely to include ideas on  
>> internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle  
>> dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned  
>> that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict  
>> freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR  
>> standards on free expression.
>>
>> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform  
>> is possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few  
>> months and I’m assuming that different groups will make  
>> submissions.  So at this stage I’m asking if anyone would be  
>> interested in joining an offlist group to put together submissions  
>> along these lines.
>
> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.

I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.

Valeria

>>
>>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering  
>> for item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>>
>>        OUTPUTS
>> Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote  
>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>> Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco  
>> Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>> Substantive input on an institutional framework for  
>> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>> Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by  
>> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>> Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and  
>> the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>
>> TIMELINE
>> Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>> First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>> Feedback from main list by January 31.
>> Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by  
>> March 1, 2014.
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>> Executive Director
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:  
>> andrewpuddephatt
>> gp-digital.org
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/4f1c86c0/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 10:39:11 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:39:11 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
Message-ID: <102a01cee6cf$d3e56cd0$7bb04670$@gmail.com>

I`m interested in both as well although I would probably look to off-load
some of this onto appropriate folks in the Community Informatics network.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Valeria Betancourt
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 7:12 AM
To: matthew shears
Cc: Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Brazil summit

 

Hi Andrew, 

 

On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:





Andrew

On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating people
to different steering groups.

 

I'm interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the summit
itself.

 

Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in
President Rouseff's speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet
governance, I am interested in working on the following:

 

.         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that keep
the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely
to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

.         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle dealing
with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I'm concerned that privacy
protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly
so I'll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.

 

I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is
possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and
I'm assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage
I'm asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put
together submissions along these lines.


Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.

 

I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items. 

 

Valeria 





      

       Reminding you of the proposed work plan - I'm volunteering for item 3
and to contribute to item 2.

 

       OUTPUTS

1.	Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
2.	Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco
Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
3.	Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
Internet governance including:

1.	Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
Internet Governance Project and/or others).
2.	Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and
the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).


TIMELINE

1.	Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
2.	First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
3.	Feedback from main list by January 31.
4.	Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by March
1, 2014.

 

 

 

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Executive Director

Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

 





-- 
 
Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/5d8e0efd/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Thu Nov 21 10:39:08 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:39:08 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
Message-ID: <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk>

Dear all

If I could note that based on its track record, and contributions in 
this regard this year along, the IRP Coaltion would continue to 
contribute to Output 3 (Substantive input on universal Internet 
principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles 
documents).

How it can contribute to other points is for the list to discuss and 
decide, so I am noting the above as point of record.

best
MF


On 21/11/2013 15:12, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:
>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for 
>>> nominating people to different steering groups.
>>>
>>> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the 
>>> summit itself.
>>>
>>> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured 
>>> in President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for 
>>> internet governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>>>
>>> ·Preparing a submission on reforminginternet governance that keep 
>>> the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which 
>>> is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and 
>>> strengthening the IGF)
>>>
>>> ·Preparing a submission on the first high level principle dealing 
>>> with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that 
>>> privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of 
>>> expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on 
>>> free expression.
>>>
>>> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is 
>>> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few 
>>> months and I’m assuming that different groups will make 
>>> submissions.  So at this stage I’m asking if anyone would be 
>>> interested in joining an offlist group to put together submissions 
>>> along these lines.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>
> I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.
>
> Valeria
>
>>>     Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for 
>>> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>>>
>>> OUTPUTS
>>>
>>>  1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>>     participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>>  2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on
>>>     Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>  3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>>     multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>>      1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done
>>>         by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>>      2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the
>>>         WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>>
>>>
>>> TIMELINE
>>>
>>>  1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>>>  2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>>>  3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>>>  4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>>>     March 1, 2014.
>>>
>>> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>>
>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>
>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: 
>>> andrewpuddephatt
>>> *gp-digital.org*
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director and Representative
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> mshears at cdt.org
>> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
>> Skype: mshears
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>

-- 
Professor Marianne Franklin
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/d725ee02/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Nov 21 11:08:37 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:08:37 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [I-coordination] Brazil Meeting Planning
In-Reply-To: <528AF740.2000904@ciroap.org>
References: <9581032E-B850-4842-98A4-53F02723B1B9@afrinic.net>
 <EC94DBC4-8D56-4970-A26A-156522B1248D@ciroap.org>
 <9FA71A7D-DF04-447D-95C9-1A23E19D7B53@oracle.com>
 <2B3427B2-7441-45B0-960A-A3FD30CB4A7E@ciroap.org>
 <8E8BA747-0C2D-4938-AC87-8309F2ACF922@afrinic.net>
 <528AF740.2000904@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.77.1642081817.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/61c75f13/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 11:42:17 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:42:17 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] FW: An Interesting Review of A Book on Jeff Sachs and
 the Millennium Villages--Re: WSIS +10
Message-ID: <10f201cee6d8$a4545e00$ecfd1a00$@gmail.com>

I think that there may be an interest in the below on this list since its
subject, Jeffrey Sachs was the keynote speaker at the WSIS + 10 Review in
February and is evidently the senior advisor to the UN on the update of the
Millennium Development goals.  

 

There is currently a lively discussion on this subject on the main Community
Informatics elist <http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/info/ciresearchers>
where a variety of grizzled and highly experienced on the ground ICT for
Development practitioners are chiming in to add their own criticisms to Mr.
Sachs` approach to Development, the use of ICTs and his gold plated (million
dollar--evidently failing) Millennium Villages. (And as it happens this
reinforces the need for some serious examination of the realities of results
on the ground of ICT4D as an input into WSIS +10.)

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 12:44 PM
To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net
Subject: An Interesting Review of A Book on Jeff Sachs and the Millennium
Villages

 

 <http://www.mcleodgroup.ca/2013/11/19/idealism-and-hubris/>
http://www.mcleodgroup.ca/2013/11/19/idealism-and-hubris/

 

IDEALISM AND HUBRIS

 

November 20, 2013

 

Nina Munk's new book, The Idealist: Jeffrey Sachs and the Quest to End
Poverty, has received a lot of attention in recent weeks, not least because
it is well written, deals with an important subject, and because it goes
after a very high-profile champion of development assistance.

 

It will be recalled that the economist, Jeff Sachs, Columbia University
wunderkind, spent time in Poland and Russia at the end of the Cold War
advising on the transition from communism to capitalism. His message was a
hard one, or at least it was hard on the vulnerable who suffered mightily as
the bottom fell out of those countries' social safety nets. Then Sachs
turned his attention to poverty and Africa. His 2005 book, The End of
Poverty, was full of outrage at the condition of the world's poor, and
dismay that so little was being done to bring education, clean drinking
water, health services and economic opportunity to Africa.

 

He argued for a "big push" in foreign aid thinking and spending, arguing
that poverty could be defeated in less than a generation if the world's rich
countries cared enough, and if the governments of poor countries did the
right thing. To prove what was possible, he conceived the idea of Millennium
Development Villages-villages in poor parts of poor countries where the
lessons of development could be applied in an integrated and sustainable
way. It wouldn't cost much-perhaps $120 per person per year to provide
health care, education and economic opportunity. And when the success of the
model became clear, it could be replicated across Africa.

 

There are now 15 Millennium Villages, and the experiment, initially a
five-year effort, has been extended to ten. In the process of writing her
book, Nina Munk spent a lot of time with Sachs-in Africa, on planes and in
the Western capitals where he pitched his vision over and over to donor
governments, the UN and some of the world's largest corporations. She also
spent a lot of time in two of the villages, one in Uganda and one on the
Kenyan border with Somalia. What she found, despite the Sachs juggernaut,
despite the building of schools and clinics and hospitals, despite all the
clever ideas about seed and fertilizer and new crops and water piped across
hills and valleys to places as dry as a desert in summer, was that it isn't
working.

 

For villages unconnected to national networks of any kind-roads, education
and health systems-the project had to create everything from scratch,
building oases of technology and resources in the middle of nowhere. Costs
rose. Clinics failed for want of supplies, generators failed for want of
parts and fuel, new crops like cardamom could not be sold, and many
villagers could not be socialized into new ways of thinking in a few short
years. In fact the villagers who resisted are perhaps the smartest people in
the story, knowing how risky it might be to abandon the tried and true in
favour of fanciful promises from outsiders. For the outsiders it was an
experiment; for the villagers it was about survival. There are several
lessons in the Millennium Villages Project, or at least in Munk's book. The
first is the one understood by villagers from the start: beware strangers
bearing gifts who know nothing about you, your village, your culture or your
history. A second lesson is one that should have been apparent to anyone
with development experience, before Sachs spent his first dollar: even if
you are successful in creating 15 islands of health and prosperity (at $5 or
$10 million a time), that's all they are likely to be without vast
additional resources and an exceptional amount of political capital-small,
well-resourced islands in a wide and perilous sea. A third lesson is about
hubris, and the penchant in outsiders-so evident in the creation every year
of hundreds of tiny new NGOs sending starry-eyed voluntourists off to build
schools and clinics in Africa-to think they have the answer, and to believe
that the world (or Africa) began on the day their plane landed in Nairobi.
They should all read this book before takeoff. Or sooner. And there is
another lesson. As Nina Munk puts it, "Oversimplification is terribly
dangerous."

 

The book will probably be seen as another in the growing list of attacks on
foreign aid. It is not that. If there is a criticism to be made, it's in the
subtitle. The book is not about Jeffery Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty.
It's about Jeffrey Sachs and His Quest to end Poverty. The quest to end
poverty continues, and foreign aid-properly conceived, locally supported and
applied with consistency and predictability-has an important part to pla

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/317cde70/attachment.htm>

From valeriab at apc.org  Thu Nov 21 13:11:45 2013
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:11:45 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <528DFD11.9070602@cdt.org>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com> <528DFD11.9070602@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <084BDC54-D039-4105-947F-83A4F93EC8FF@apc.org>

Thanks Nnenna for the summary and Ian for the proposal.  In our view,  
this is a good way forward.  Matthew's point "on an interim basis" is  
a good one and will allow us to discuss adjustments and changes in the  
process in the future.

+1 on Matthew's point re Jeremy assuming the CSSC role for BB.

Valeria

On 21/11/2013, at 7:31, matthew shears wrote:

> Nnenna
>
> I think this is a good way forward on an interim basis.  While I  
> personally like relatively informal processes for agreeing  
> individuals for particular roles, I think many feel that BB does  
> need some more elaborated process for the selection of persons to  
> specific roles for the future.   Hence my "on an interim basis"  
> comment.
>
> If Jeremy is amenable I am comfortable with him assuming this  
> steering committee (CSSC) role for BB.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 21/11/2013 08:05, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In the framework of:
>> - 1Net
>> - Brazil commitees
>> - Future collaboration of Civil Society  on representations
>>
>> Ian Peter has made a proposal that has circulated in the past 24  
>> hours among the coordinating/steering/leadership of different  
>> platforms and networks.
>>
>> ===
>> Here is the original proposal
>>
>> My first suggestion is everyone agrees to formation of a Steering  
>> Committee. I suggest it be composed of one rep from each of
>>
>> APC
>> Best Bits
>> Diplo
>> NCSG
>> IGC
>>
>>
>> I think you should empower the Civil Society Steering Committee  
>> (CSSC)  to make such nominations as are necessary, consulting as  
>> appropriate.
>>
>> This seems to have a fair amount of agreement – and does have the  
>> advantage of allowing CS to speak in a more united fashion in  
>> various discussions.
>>
>> ====
>>
>> Marianne has remarked that IRP needs to be on this as it is a  
>> coalition of its own.
>>
>> What do you think/say?
>>
>> Listening.
>>
>> Nnenna
>> [Posting as a BB Steering member]
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/f8553dd5/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Thu Nov 21 14:27:37 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:27:37 -0500
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andrew, all, Also interested contributing to outputs 2 and 3 (3.2
specifically).

Best,
Deborah


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> wrote:

>  Dear all
>
> If I could note that based on its track record, and contributions in this
> regard this year along, the IRP Coaltion would continue to contribute to
> Output 3 (Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on
> Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>
> How it can contribute to other points is for the list to discuss and
> decide, so I am noting the above as point of record.
>
> best
> MF
>
>
> On 21/11/2013 15:12, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
>  On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:
>
>  Andrew
>
> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
>  Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating
> people to different steering groups.
>
>
>
> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the
> summit itself.
>
>
>
> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in
> President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet
> governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>
>
>
> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that
> keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is
> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the
> IGF)
>
> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle
> dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that
> privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of
> expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free
> expression.
>
>
>
> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is
> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and
> I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage
> I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put
> together submissions along these lines.
>
>
> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>
>
>  I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.
>
>  Valeria
>
>
>
>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for
> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>
>
>
>        OUTPUTS
>
>    1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>    participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>    2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco
>    Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>    3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>    multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>       1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>       Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>       2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>       and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>
>
> TIMELINE
>
>    1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>    2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>    3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>    4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>    March 1, 2014.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Professor Marianne Franklin
> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> Dept. of Media & Communications
> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> @GloCommhttps://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> @netrights
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
>


-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org
rightscon.org

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/9a498aad/attachment.htm>

From valeriab at apc.org  Thu Nov 21 15:22:30 2013
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:22:30 -0500
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org>

Sorry, I should have said:

We in APC are interested in contributing to items 1, 2 and 3.

Valeria

On 21/11/2013, at 14:27, Deborah Brown wrote:

> Hi Andrew, all, Also interested contributing to outputs 2 and 3 (3.2  
> specifically).
>
> Best,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk 
> > wrote:
> Dear all
>
> If I could note that based on its track record, and contributions in  
> this regard this year along, the IRP Coaltion would continue to  
> contribute to Output 3 (Substantive input on universal Internet  
> principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles  
> documents).
>
> How it can contribute to other points is for the list to discuss and  
> decide, so I am noting the above as point of record.
>
> best
> MF
>
>
> On 21/11/2013 15:12, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>>> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for  
>>>> nominating people to different steering groups.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to  
>>>> the summit itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as  
>>>> prefigured in President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and  
>>>> proposals for internet governance, I am interested in working on  
>>>> the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance  
>>>> that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder  
>>>> participation (which is likely to include ideas on  
>>>> internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>>>
>>>> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level  
>>>> principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that  
>>>> I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could  
>>>> restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to  
>>>> assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform  
>>>> is possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last  
>>>> few months and I’m assuming that different groups will make  
>>>> submissions.  So at this stage I’m asking if anyone would be  
>>>> interested in joining an offlist group to put together  
>>>> submissions along these lines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>>
>> I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.
>>
>> Valeria
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering  
>>>> for item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        OUTPUTS
>>>>
>>>> Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote  
>>>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>>> Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on  
>>>> Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>> Substantive input on an institutional framework for  
>>>> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>>> Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by  
>>>> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>>> Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC  
>>>> and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>>>
>>>> TIMELINE
>>>>
>>>> Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>>>> First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>>>> Feedback from main list by January 31.
>>>> Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by  
>>>> March 1, 2014.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>>
>>>> Executive Director
>>>>
>>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>>
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:  
>>>> andrewpuddephatt
>>>> gp-digital.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Director and Representative
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> mshears at cdt.org
>>> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
>>> Skype: mshears
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Professor Marianne Franklin
> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> Dept. of Media & Communications
> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> @GloComm
> https://twitter.com/GloComm
> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational- 
> communications/
> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> @netrights
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | accessnow.org
> rightscon.org
>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/b5fac585/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 16:07:37 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:07:37 -0500
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
	<D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
	<528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk>
	<CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com>

Happy to help, mainly regarding to 2. For that, pls find attached the
comparative chart mapping different statements from different stakeholders.
I have sent this around in the past, but it may be useful at this point.
Next steps?


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org>wrote:

> Sorry, I should have said:
>
> We in APC are interested in contributing to items 1, 2 and 3.
>
> Valeria
>
> On 21/11/2013, at 14:27, Deborah Brown wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew, all, Also interested contributing to outputs 2 and 3 (3.2
> specifically).
>
> Best,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marianne Franklin <
> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>  Dear all
>>
>> If I could note that based on its track record, and contributions in this
>> regard this year along, the IRP Coaltion would continue to contribute to
>> Output 3 (Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on
>> Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>
>> How it can contribute to other points is for the list to discuss and
>> decide, so I am noting the above as point of record.
>>
>> best
>> MF
>>
>>
>> On 21/11/2013 15:12, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>>  On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>>  Andrew
>>
>> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>
>> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating
>> people to different steering groups.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the
>> summit itself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in
>> President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet
>> governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that
>> keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is
>> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the
>> IGF)
>>
>> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle
>> dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that
>> privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of
>> expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free
>> expression.
>>
>>
>>
>> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is
>> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and
>> I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage
>> I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put
>> together submissions along these lines.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>>
>>
>>  I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.
>>
>>  Valeria
>>
>>
>>
>>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for
>> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>>
>>
>>
>>        OUTPUTS
>>
>>    1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>    participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>    2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco
>>    Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>    3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>    multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>       1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>>       Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>       2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>>       and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>
>>
>> TIMELINE
>>
>>    1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>>    2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>>    3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>>    4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>>    March 1, 2014.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director and Representative
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
>> Skype: mshears
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Marianne Franklin
>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>> Dept. of Media & Communications
>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>> @GloCommhttps://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> @netrights
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | accessnow.org
> rightscon.org
>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/bd04c1c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: naf_otiissuecomparisonchartplusanalysis (1).zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 3007902 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/bd04c1c3/attachment.zip>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 16:15:17 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:15:17 +0000
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
	<D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
	<528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk>
	<CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org>
	<CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Carolina, for sharing.

The Web We Want community  is also willing to contribute.

Best

N


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Happy to help, mainly regarding to 2. For that, pls find attached the
> comparative chart mapping different statements from different stakeholders.
> I have sent this around in the past, but it may be useful at this point.
> Next steps?
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org>wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I should have said:
>>
>> We in APC are interested in contributing to items 1, 2 and 3.
>>
>> Valeria
>>
>> On 21/11/2013, at 14:27, Deborah Brown wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew, all, Also interested contributing to outputs 2 and 3 (3.2
>> specifically).
>>
>> Best,
>> Deborah
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marianne Franklin <
>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear all
>>>
>>> If I could note that based on its track record, and contributions in
>>> this regard this year along, the IRP Coaltion would continue to contribute
>>> to Output 3 (Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based
>>> on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>
>>> How it can contribute to other points is for the list to discuss and
>>> decide, so I am noting the above as point of record.
>>>
>>> best
>>> MF
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/11/2013 15:12, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>>  On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:
>>>
>>>  Andrew
>>>
>>> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating
>>> people to different steering groups.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the
>>> summit itself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in
>>> President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet
>>> governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that
>>> keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is
>>> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the
>>> IGF)
>>>
>>> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle
>>> dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that
>>> privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of
>>> expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free
>>> expression.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is
>>> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and
>>> I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage
>>> I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put
>>> together submissions along these lines.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.
>>>
>>>  Valeria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for
>>> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        OUTPUTS
>>>
>>>    1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>>    participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>>    2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on
>>>    Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>    3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>>    multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>>       1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>>>       Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>>       2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>>>       and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>>
>>>
>>> TIMELINE
>>>
>>>    1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>>>    2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>>>    3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>>>    4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>>>    March 1, 2014.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>>
>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>
>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>>> andrewpuddephatt
>>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Director and Representative
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
>>> Skype: mshears
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Professor Marianne Franklin
>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>> Dept. of Media & Communications
>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>>> @GloCommhttps://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> @netrights
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Deborah Brown
>> Senior Policy Analyst
>>  Access | accessnow.org
>> rightscon.org
>>
>> @deblebrown
>>  PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/10737182/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov  3 01:27:04 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:57:04 +0530
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014
 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil]
In-Reply-To: <FB8831B1-D184-4190-841C-2AE653BCD724@ciroap.org>
References: <0339a70c3116d219340bbc95da9f3f51.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <FB8831B1-D184-4190-841C-2AE653BCD724@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5275ECB8.6060909@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 26 October 2013 05:34 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2013, at 12:20 pm, parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> In fact I am simply not sure who - as in which group - is leading this
>> process - Jeremy, can we be clear on this...
>
> The feeling on the Best Bits steering committee at our face to face 
> meeting was that we should post it despite the lack of unanimity, and 
> let those who wanted to sign on do so, however we never got the chance 
> because the server went down.

Still not clear which group led the process of formulating and proposing 
the statement.... which I understand, as per the way Bestbits group and 
its steering committee is propositioned, cant be the steering committee 
itself leading the process... But are you saying that in this particular 
case indeed the steering committee led the process of drafting, 
finalising and proposing the statement....?

> That was when Norbert and Sala stepped in. Though not at our request. 
> That isn't a really clear answer to your question, but it's the best I 
> can do.

We need to reach a position where we can begin getting clear responses 
to the all-important process issues posed to the custodians of civil 
society processes... Not only  now but also at the BestBits face to face 
meeting quite a lot of such questions got no answer, or at any rate not 
a clear enough one...

parminder
>
>> Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement o
>> the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become available
>> and there is some f2f meetings in Bali.
>
> Sure, why not? If consensus can be reached.
>
> -- 
> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/64ec9192/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 16:18:57 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:18:57 -0500
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
	<D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
	<528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk>
	<CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org>
	<CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAd=95AvsHa3UvGbq4_cM5TZ9kdk0fHrxuCQ4V9sxDjtCw@mail.gmail.com>

they are separated in different archives to make easy to print, but you can
put all them side by side


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Carolina, for sharing.
>
> The Web We Want community  is also willing to contribute.
>
> Best
>
> N
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Happy to help, mainly regarding to 2. For that, pls find attached the
>> comparative chart mapping different statements from different stakeholders.
>> I have sent this around in the past, but it may be useful at this point.
>> Next steps?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I should have said:
>>>
>>> We in APC are interested in contributing to items 1, 2 and 3.
>>>
>>> Valeria
>>>
>>> On 21/11/2013, at 14:27, Deborah Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew, all, Also interested contributing to outputs 2 and 3 (3.2
>>> specifically).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Deborah
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marianne Franklin <
>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Dear all
>>>>
>>>> If I could note that based on its track record, and contributions in
>>>> this regard this year along, the IRP Coaltion would continue to contribute
>>>> to Output 3 (Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based
>>>> on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>>
>>>> How it can contribute to other points is for the list to discuss and
>>>> decide, so I am noting the above as point of record.
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>> MF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21/11/2013 15:12, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>>  On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating
>>>> people to different steering groups.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the
>>>> summit itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in
>>>> President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet
>>>> governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that
>>>> keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is
>>>> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the
>>>> IGF)
>>>>
>>>> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle
>>>> dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that
>>>> privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of
>>>> expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free
>>>> expression.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is
>>>> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and
>>>> I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage
>>>> I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put
>>>> together submissions along these lines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.
>>>>
>>>>  Valeria
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for
>>>> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        OUTPUTS
>>>>
>>>>    1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>>>    participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>>>    2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on
>>>>    Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>>    3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>>>    multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>>>       1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>>>>       Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>>>       2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the
>>>>       WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TIMELINE
>>>>
>>>>    1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>>>>    2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>>>>    3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>>>>    4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>>>>    March 1, 2014.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>>>
>>>> Executive Director
>>>>
>>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>>
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>>>> andrewpuddephatt
>>>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>> Director and Representative
>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
>>>> Skype: mshears
>>>>
>>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professor Marianne Franklin
>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>>>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>>> Dept. of Media & Communications
>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>>>> @GloCommhttps://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>> @netrights
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IRP mailing list
>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Deborah Brown
>>> Senior Policy Analyst
>>>  Access | accessnow.org
>>> rightscon.org
>>>
>>> @deblebrown
>>>  PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/01c47313/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Thu Nov 21 17:23:56 2013
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:23:56 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <084BDC54-D039-4105-947F-83A4F93EC8FF@apc.org>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>
	<528DFD11.9070602@cdt.org>
	<084BDC54-D039-4105-947F-83A4F93EC8FF@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40vHG9jsaQ3NT=+x-xHQyQ_Kw4G3q6HuV=_SNnSGAdQsjQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1 fully concur


On 21 November 2013 18:11, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:

> Thanks Nnenna for the summary and Ian for the proposal.  In our view, this
> is a good way forward.  Matthew's point "on an interim basis" is a good one
> and will allow us to discuss adjustments and changes in the process in the
> future.
>
> +1 on Matthew's point re Jeremy assuming the CSSC role for BB.
>
> Valeria
>
> On 21/11/2013, at 7:31, matthew shears wrote:
>
>  Nnenna
>
> I think this is a good way forward on an interim basis.  While I
> personally like relatively informal processes for agreeing individuals for
> particular roles, I think many feel that BB does need some more elaborated
> process for the selection of persons to specific roles for the future.
> Hence my "on an interim basis" comment.
>
> If Jeremy is amenable I am comfortable with him assuming this steering
> committee (CSSC) role for BB.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 21/11/2013 08:05, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>
>    Dear all,
>
>  In the framework of:
>  - 1Net
>  - Brazil commitees
>  - Future collaboration of Civil Society  on representations
>
>  Ian Peter has made a proposal that has circulated in the past 24 hours
> among the coordinating/steering/leadership of different platforms and
> networks.
>
> ===
> Here is the original proposal
>
> My first suggestion is everyone agrees to formation of a Steering
> Committee. I suggest it be composed of one rep from each of
>
> APC
> Best Bits
> Diplo
>  NCSG
> IGC
>
>
> I think you should empower the Civil Society Steering Committee (CSSC)  to
> make such nominations as are necessary, consulting as appropriate.
>
>  This seems to have a fair amount of agreement – and does have the
> advantage of allowing CS to speak in a more united fashion in various
> discussions.
>
> ====
>
>  Marianne has remarked that IRP needs to be on this as it is a coalition
> of its own.
>
>  What do you think/say?
>
>  Listening.
>
>  Nnenna
>  [Posting as a BB Steering member]
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>www.itag.gm
<http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/8cde9ea6/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 17:30:06 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:30:06 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Info on Nnenna Nwakanma
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh13fLx7xicAma3BN_ivtFeuOs76Q6firCkgoiekAnthZMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh13fLx7xicAma3BN_ivtFeuOs76Q6firCkgoiekAnthZMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh106jXvtyuEjSf97cUp0Pbo+XzwME78aRrpppfjRT66+7Q@mail.gmail.com>

1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC

I have been on the IGC before we wrote the Charter and  has served in some
IGC instances: Drafting Charter, Appeals team, rep. I contribute to the
Best Bits Platform, and the Africa CS list on IG. I wrote the concept note
for the Africa Internet Governance Forum and went to see the African
highest authorities with it. I still volunteer in many of the AfIGF work

2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the
IGC

I consult with IG networks via lists, and social media. I consult in
English and French. I read a bit of Spanish.

3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote
participation

I have remotely participated via hubs for 2 IGF editions and physically in
Nairobi, Baku and Bali. I also was the remote moderator for  IGC workshop
in the just ended  Bali IGF.

4. Knowledge of the UN system

Been around since prepcom 2 of the Geneva phase till now. Currently part of
the Informal Expert Group (IEG) on Internet Policy of ITU. I did the WCIT
in Dubai and WTPF in Geneva remotely. I've worked closely with the UN
Economic Commission for Africa in AfIGF

5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives
held by civil society.

Not an easy task and has to be learned every time. But going by  opening
Ceremony speech on behalf of Civil Society  in Bali, with  just about 24
hours to consult, it appeared many CS folks saw their issues ably
represented. I requested input from everybody and got 50+ emails and I
needed to summarize that in  less than 6 minutes. I did share the general
outline of the speech ahead of time, though.

6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute
constructively to MAG deliberations

Despite being asked every year, I have always avoided the MAG till now.
Good news is that I'm now the Africa Regional Coordinator for the World
Wide Web Foundation and I have the support of the Foundation. Meaning my
time in the MAG is known by my employer. It makes things easier

7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including
the IGC on issues and progress

I have a tendency to summarize and number issues, even in emails.  So
feedbacks are going to be short and precise. I've quit doing attached
files, I just point to URLs
Nnenna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/e785e45e/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 20:07:38 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:07:38 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <E42888A1-42F3-4F46-986A-89E6E9480B74@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <528CB342.50700@gold.ac.uk> <CALTAiToW+XjxPHN6its06TNHK4foR4FyK_uKcgvB9wWdma2ORA@mail.gmail.com> <09ea01cee609$7f6b5dc0$7e421940$@gmail.com> <E42888A1-42F3-4F46-986A-89E6E9480B74@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <011b01cee71f$3d05b630$b7112290$@gmail.com>

We've now spent 3 or 4 days discussing/avoiding legitimizing the leadership
structure for BB which is, I would guess, more than enough time for the
current leadership to have gone through a reasonable if accelerated
transparent selection/legitimization process.  This along with your
statement that the reason for this is the "very important processes that are
rolling along", I must say leads inevitably to even more suspicion and
unease as to possible underlying motives for this evident lack of will in
this direction etc. etc.

 

The fact that the entire self-appointed Steering Committee appears to be
part of an as yet invisible nom-com for selecting for example, the CS rep.
to the HLP makes one even more uneasy.

 

What Snowden did which is of immediate relevance is to indicate how
significant the Internet is seen by the emergent Surveillance State. As I
discussed quite extensively in a blogpost
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-
enemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/>  it would be
astonishing if the security apparatus would be systematically looking for
vulnerabilities and ways of subverting Internet processes in global
governments, the private sector and the technical community and would bypass
activities such as those such ours in Civil Society that potentially go to
the heart of the Internet through its potentially emergent structures of
governance as we are currently discussing.

 

As Ronald Reagan famously said "trust but verify".

 

M

 

From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:24 AM
To: michael gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&g
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

 

On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:59 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:





Unfortunately in the post-Snowden world "trust us" is not a sufficient
answer-only transparency and accountability are.

 

As long as the Steering Committee is self-appointed through murky procedures
and as long as this self-appointed (Interim or no) Steering Committee
chooses to act (and present itself to the world) as though it has a mandate
to act on behalf of the BB grouping whatever that might be, there will
necessarily and quite reasonably be a lack of trust and questions as to
legitimacy.

 

Actually the only such questions are coming from within; we are undermining
ourselves, and to my mind unnecessarily so.  Snowden did not tar civil
society with the same brush as the NSA.  We have presented an interim
procedure for democratising the steering committee in Bali, which remains
open for discussion and will be implemented soon once finalised, but to rush
its finalisation now at a time when leadership is required would be
pointless and would simply remove us from some very important processes that
are rolling along with or without us.

 

-- 



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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone>
http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://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.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
<http://jere.my/l/8m> http://jere.my/l/8m.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/4d1d8052/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 21 20:36:05 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:36:05 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D04253@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D04253@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <014701cee723$36a2e5c0$a3e8b140$@gmail.com>

Andrew is this process open to everyone or only to those with the resources to get to London “before Xmas”?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:28 AM
To: matthew shears; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Brazil summit

 

I’m going to try and bring in Article 19 on his – maybe we could all get together in London before Xmas?

 

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Executive Director

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

 

From: matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org] 
Sent: 21 November 2013 10:32
To: Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> > (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Brazil summit

 

Andrew

On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating people to different steering groups.

 

I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the summit itself.

 

Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet governance, I am interested in working on the following:

 

·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.

 

I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put together submissions along these lines.


Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.

      

       Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for item 3 and to contribute to item 2.

 

       OUTPUTS

1.	Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
2.	Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
3.	Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:

1.	Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
2.	Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).


TIMELINE

1.	Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
2.	First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
3.	Feedback from main list by January 31.
4.	Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014.

 

 

 

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Executive Director

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

 

 

-- 
 
Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131121/216ecaca/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 21 23:38:57 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:08:57 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeting - CS representation
Message-ID: <528EDFE1.9030909@itforchange.net>

All

I am not sure whether we are still going to send a letter to the 
Brazilians about independent liaison between civil society and the 
Brazilian hosts, or ifwe are now settled on having that done through the 
1net structure. (And of course to also put forward the four names for 
our proposed liaison structure.) Have we now dropped that idea?

I understand that a meeting/ announcement on the 25th will further 
cement the emerging organising structure, and there isnt much time left 
if we indeed want to make such a communication to the Brazilians. As I 
said a few days back, if such a letter has to go, it has to go 'today', 
and personally delivered to highest authority with request for 
acknowledgement and response. For an annoucement to be made on monday, 
people would have mostly decided on what to announce by Friday..

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/278e152f/attachment.htm>

From hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de  Thu Nov 21 14:14:14 2013
From: hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:14:14 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <528E5B86.5010903@internetundgesellschaft.de>

What a relief, thank you Andrew! I am interested in topic 3 and would 
like to listen and comment.

jeanette

Am 21.11.13 11:32, schrieb matthew shears:
> Andrew
>
> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>
>> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating
>> people to different steering groups.
>>
>> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the
>> summit itself.
>>
>> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in
>> President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet
>> governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>>
>> ·Preparing a submission on reforminginternet governance that keep the
>> dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is
>> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening
>> the IGF)
>>
>> ·Preparing a submission on the first high level principle dealing with
>> free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy
>> protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression
>> unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>
>> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is
>> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few
>> months and I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.
>> So at this stage I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining
>> an offlist group to put together submissions along these lines.
>>
>
> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>>
>>     Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for
>> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>>
>> OUTPUTS
>>
>>  1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>     participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>  2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco
>>     Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>  3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>     multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>      1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>>         Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>      2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>>         and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>
>>
>> TIMELINE
>>
>>  1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>>  2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>>  3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>>  4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>>     March 1, 2014.
>>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> *gp-digital.org*
>>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears
>

From Dixie at gp-digital.org  Thu Nov 21 12:24:30 2013
From: Dixie at gp-digital.org (Dixie Hawtin)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:24:30 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>,<528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too!

On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues  discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles.

On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels.

I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we never reach it because people come back continuously to the few areas where there are disagreement (or where people's opinions aren't fully formed and they aren't willing to concede until they are) and scratch at them on and on that prevents us from working on the areas where there is agreement. If we spent more time working on the areas where there is agreement, I honestly think that by the time we came to the more contentious areas we'd find them much narrower and easier to deal with, then we do by starting at those points. These conversations always seem to be framed as "we need to agree on the most contentious issues BEFORE we discuss anything else".

For example, coming up with a proposal to put forward for the Brazil meeting - I think if we started trying to craft the language, the concerns with the current situation, the things we want to see, I think there would be huge amounts of agreement - strengthening IGF, internationalising ICANN, the values that should be ingrained in any governance mechanism. Then if at the end of that we came to some sort of roadblock  (in very crude terms multi-stakeholder vs multi-lateral but I think those generic terms might sound far more apart than they are actually are among many civil society people), we could at that point decide to either submit different proposals, or come up with some slightly diplomatic fudge that most of us could sign on too, and as a result would have a lot of power. That's what happened with the WCIT statement.

Anyways, I'm really frustrated to see the BB list go the same way as the IGC list just one month after we all agreed we didn't want that to happen. And I don't think anyone has caused it by the principles behind what they are saying, but rather by the way in which they say those things. Just to say, I thought the exact same about the debate about civil society funding. It's a completely valid point and I know that we at GPD are working on producing public reports of our funding streams. But it should not be started with: whoever gets funding from x funder is therefore invalid and should not be included in the debate. Again the conversation should start where there is agreement: i.e. "I think transparency and accountability among civil society is important, and one thing we should look at ways of being more transparent about is funding".

Best,
Dixie
________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: 21 November 2013 14:04
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC

On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme.
I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done.

It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and  you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument...

No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points....

My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.

You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels.

Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that it is not right to not treat all countries at the same level.....  It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South....


When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council
No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body....

– a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights.

The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies....
Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are.  I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.
I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months.  My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely  comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.

On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies.

But I’m looking forward to others’ views.
And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not.

That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder

It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.  We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.


Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC

Andrew

I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.

Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue.

my responses below...
On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel

I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it....


that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts.


You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being  dismissed  in such a summary and disdainful manner.



Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by.  People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding.

With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe.  It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms.  It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership).  In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful.  Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be.

The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet

What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...)


is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued.  Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line.  In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that.

Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space,


My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights.

I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues...


Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process.   I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that.  It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions.

IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach....

Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work.....



I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.)  I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do

No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify...  If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one...



though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want.

Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward.


  I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something  different to you.

As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all  pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters...


In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more.

How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you.

parminder

So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC


On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Dear Anja

Thank you for this.

I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal.

Could it be differences between ministries?

No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest...

While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe.....

Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.)

Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about....

Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish!

So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power?

I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones?  Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers?

Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG...


parminder





I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.

Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop.

But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG.

That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions.

Anriette


On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ )

Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.

Comments most welcome.
Best,
Anja
Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet?
by Anja Kovacs

Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case.

In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following:

The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.

Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived.

Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal.

Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward.

Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job.

However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics.

The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.

The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda.

India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year.

For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model.



--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>




--

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

anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>

executive director, association for progressive communications

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

po box 29755, melville 2109

south africa

tel/fax +27 11 726 1692



From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Nov 22 00:55:37 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:55:37 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>,<528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net>,<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B6687@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Permit we to wade in and attempt to move the rock back up the hill:

- Parminder's right to highlight the dichotomy around 'do as I say I would do if I didn't also deal with OECD' 

- Andrew's right that CS can't be blamed for OECD ICCP, even in its new and improved with CSISAC form. 

In principle, an ICCP for the rest of the world does not sound bad; of course details matter a lot. (And I will be first to admit I get a kick of occasionally attending an OECD meeting; more fun than most.

OK so what, clock is still ticking loudly and time is awasting on cs getting its act together sufficiently to have much impact on the upcoming brazil meeting agenda; among other things of substance to discuss.

Which brings us back to my various scenarios for a constructive detente with ICANN AND (gasp) the multilateralist UN, to support the policy space needed to deal with 'orphan issues' among other IG matters. 

Please do not reply to part 1, just second part on possible shape of future - compromises - to get deal done/press release out on time and under budget, in Brazil.

Lee


________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Dixie Hawtin [Dixie at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:24 PM
To: parminder; Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC

I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too!

On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues  discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles.

On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels.

I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we never reach it because people come back continuously to the few areas where there are disagreement (or where people's opinions aren't fully formed and they aren't willing to concede until they are) and scratch at them on and on that prevents us from working on the areas where there is agreement. If we spent more time working on the areas where there is agreement, I honestly think that by the time we came to the more contentious areas we'd find them much narrower and easier to deal with, then we do by starting at those points. These conversations always seem to be framed as "we need to agree on the most contentious issues BEFORE we discuss anything else".

For example, coming up with a proposal to put forward for the Brazil meeting - I think if we started trying to craft the language, the concerns with the current situation, the things we want to see, I think there would be huge amounts of agreement - strengthening IGF, internationalising ICANN, the values that should be ingrained in any governance mechanism. Then if at the end of that we came to some sort of roadblock  (in very crude terms multi-stakeholder vs multi-lateral but I think those generic terms might sound far more apart than they are actually are among many civil society people), we could at that point decide to either submit different proposals, or come up with some slightly diplomatic fudge that most of us could sign on too, and as a result would have a lot of power. That's what happened with the WCIT statement.

Anyways, I'm really frustrated to see the BB list go the same way as the IGC list just one month after we all agreed we didn't want that to happen. And I don't think anyone has caused it by the principles behind what they are saying, but rather by the way in which they say those things. Just to say, I thought the exact same about the debate about civil society funding. It's a completely valid point and I know that we at GPD are working on producing public reports of our funding streams. But it should not be started with: whoever gets funding from x funder is therefore invalid and should not be included in the debate. Again the conversation should start where there is agreement: i.e. "I think transparency and accountability among civil society is important, and one thing we should look at ways of being more transparent about is funding".

Best,
Dixie
________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: 21 November 2013 14:04
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC

On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme.
I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done.

It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and  you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument...

No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points....

My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.

You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels.

Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that it is not right to not treat all countries at the same level.....  It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South....


When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council
No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body....

– a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights.

The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies....
Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are.  I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.
I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months.  My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely  comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.

On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies.

But I’m looking forward to others’ views.
And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not.

That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder

It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.  We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.


Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC

Andrew

I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.

Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue.

my responses below...
On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel

I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it....


that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts.


You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being  dismissed  in such a summary and disdainful manner.



Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by.  People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding.

With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe.  It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms.  It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership).  In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful.  Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be.

The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet

What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...)


is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued.  Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line.  In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that.

Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space,


My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights.

I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues...


Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process.   I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that.  It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions.

IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach....

Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work.....



I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.)  I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do

No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify...  If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one...



though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want.

Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward.


  I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something  different to you.

As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all  pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters...


In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more.

How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you.

parminder

So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC


On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Dear Anja

Thank you for this.

I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal.

Could it be differences between ministries?

No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest...

While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe.....

Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.)

Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about....

Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish!

So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power?

I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones?  Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers?

Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG...


parminder





I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.

Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop.

But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG.

That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions.

Anriette


On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ )

Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.

Comments most welcome.
Best,
Anja
Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet?
by Anja Kovacs

Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case.

In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following:

The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.

Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived.

Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal.

Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward.

Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job.

However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics.

The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.

The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda.

India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year.

For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model.



--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>




--

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

anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>

executive director, association for progressive communications

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

po box 29755, melville 2109

south africa

tel/fax +27 11 726 1692



From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 02:31:24 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:31:24 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeting - CS representation
In-Reply-To: <528EDFE1.9030909@itforchange.net>
References: <528EDFE1.9030909@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CADFgh11mgTS7R+-7s1zd6UHRAOCAwa_22k0CxwD_oyBoeLmmwg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder, all

The draft is ready and Joana is handling its translation.

Should be shared any moment from now

N


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:38 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  All
>
> I am not sure whether we are still going to send a letter to the
> Brazilians about independent liaison between civil society and the
> Brazilian hosts, or if we are now settled on having that done through the
> 1net structure. (And of course to also put forward the four names for our
> proposed liaison structure.) Have we now dropped that idea?
>
> I understand that a meeting/ announcement on the 25th will further cement
> the emerging organising structure, and there isnt much time left if we
> indeed want to make such a communication to the Brazilians. As I said a few
> days back, if such a letter has to go, it has to go 'today', and personally
> delivered to highest authority with request for acknowledgement and
> response. For an annoucement to be made on monday, people would have mostly
> decided on what to announce by Friday..
>
> parminder
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/8de04556/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov  3 01:36:31 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:06:31 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet
 Governance Summit in Brazil
In-Reply-To: <9E000712-0B79-408E-8E01-B1ACB1BE89F4@ciroap.org>
References: <788D29EF-3039-4905-B0DD-15D0F40EBA3A@ciroap.org> <20131025035459.4f131496@swan.bollow.ch> <CADFgh10bGrzY2wfhkcqYC=-_L548_sgSCEv_o3Q9xC7B3iC=xw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHD_qfrhpuAGQqeW50nLdBHtffQbyQW75YCzTZGqbWHyFw@mail.gmail.com> <5269F415.7080302@itforchange.net> <EDE8D93C-5740-4DBE-B50A-7CEDE82AF069@ciroap.org> <4995fa1a166549928c07b7558a06bd56.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <9E000712-0B79-408E-8E01-B1ACB1BE89F4@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5275EEEF.8030806@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 26 October 2013 05:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:53 am, parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>>> Yes it is the same, with those suggestions incorporated, and reviewed.
>>
>> Thanks for the information, Jeremy...
>>
>> Who reviewed and incorporated the suggestions, and 'finalised' the 
>> statement.
>
> The steering committee (except Marianne who presented apologies) at a 
> meeting the previous night.

In fact, the lack of clarity of the process is so high that I no longer 
know who are members of steering committee... Dont  those who consider 
themselves members of the BB group kind of need to know such basic stuff...

One process issue that was raised repeatedly at the BB f2f meeting was 
about clarity about steering committee members and where they 'came 
from'..... there was a demand that their association with groups/ 
organisation etc be very clear, along with nature of funding support 
etc, and I would add - if not explicit on the respective websites - a 
basic statement of organisational objectives, vision/ mission etc, and 
list of activities and the such...

parminder


>
>> My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... 
>
> That, though, was just an oversight - I really apologise for that. I 
> actually thought that we had incorporated the only two outstanding 
> points and evidently overlooked this one, or thought it had already 
> been incorporated.
>
> Somewhat explaining this lapse, we were very pressed for time as we 
> wanted it to go public on the last day of the IGF, and by that time 
> the BB server was already down, though I didn't yet realise how badly. 
> I spent a few hours that night trying to bring it back up.
>
>> It was
>> regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second sentence -
>> which seek multistakeholder model of holding the conference. I had
>> proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil society to be an 
>> equal
>> partner in all processes of holding the conference..... 
>
> However I do think this is covered pretty well anyway, if you take the 
> statement as a whole.
>
> -- 
> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/594254dc/attachment.htm>

From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 02:39:06 2013
From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:39:06 +0100
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
 <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid>

I'm also happy to provide international legal analysis regarding #2 and 3.

Cheers
Matthias


Am 21.11.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:

Thanks, Carolina, for sharing.

The Web We Want community  is also willing to contribute.

Best

N


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Happy to help, mainly regarding to 2. For that, pls find attached the
> comparative chart mapping different statements from different stakeholders.
> I have sent this around in the past, but it may be useful at this point.
> Next steps?
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org>wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I should have said:
>>
>> We in APC are interested in contributing to items 1, 2 and 3.
>>
>> Valeria
>>
>> On 21/11/2013, at 14:27, Deborah Brown wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew, all, Also interested contributing to outputs 2 and 3 (3.2
>> specifically).
>>
>> Best,
>> Deborah
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marianne Franklin <
>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear all
>>>
>>> If I could note that based on its track record, and contributions in
>>> this regard this year along, the IRP Coaltion would continue to contribute
>>> to Output 3 (Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based
>>> on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>
>>> How it can contribute to other points is for the list to discuss and
>>> decide, so I am noting the above as point of record.
>>>
>>> best
>>> MF
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/11/2013 15:12, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>>  On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:
>>>
>>>  Andrew
>>>
>>> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating
>>> people to different steering groups.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the
>>> summit itself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in
>>> President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet
>>> governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that
>>> keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is
>>> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the
>>> IGF)
>>>
>>> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle
>>> dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that
>>> privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of
>>> expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free
>>> expression.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is
>>> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and
>>> I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage
>>> I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put
>>> together submissions along these lines.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.
>>>
>>>  Valeria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for
>>> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        OUTPUTS
>>>
>>>    1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>>    participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>>    2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on
>>>    Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>    3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>>    multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>>       1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>>>       Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>>       2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>>>       and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>>
>>>
>>> TIMELINE
>>>
>>>    1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>>>    2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>>>    3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>>>    4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>>>    March 1, 2014.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>>
>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>
>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>>> andrewpuddephatt
>>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Director and Representative
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
>>> Skype: mshears
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Professor Marianne Franklin
>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>> Dept. of Media & Communications
>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>>> @GloCommhttps://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> @netrights
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Deborah Brown
>> Senior Policy Analyst
>>  Access | accessnow.org
>> rightscon.org
>>
>> @deblebrown
>>  PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/06e8bd86/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 02:59:32 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:59:32 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <2EF4B072E3094C5A8472306C86755121@Toshiba>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>
	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
	<02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch>
	<CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org>
	<B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch>
	<76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org>
	<2EF4B072E3094C5A8472306C86755121@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CADFgh13mWF3QO0ccwWyuvEi59KnfxJRHY-FnFxshME4GM7guKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

+1 On Ian.  I dont think we should de facto ask that all CS  reps be
renewed.  Because even other MAG members have  said that not all of us have
fulfilled their tasks.

Which brings us back to a fundamental question: respecting the criteria
that we have communicated as being those that we wil use to decide who
represents us.

Really, we should insist on merit, on engagement and on expertise.

Very best

Nnenna


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   late at night here but as a quick response. I think you should think
> very carefully about supporting the continuation of all current civil
> society members of MAG
>
> Several are completely unknown to either Best Bits or IGC, some are quite
> inactive, some represent small interest groups only. I think it is a
> mistake to support all existing CS MAG people.
>
> Ian
>
>  *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2013 7:45 PM
> *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval -
> URGENT
>
>  To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:
>
>
>    - Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil society
>    representatives, we should simply support the continuation of all civil
>    society representatives who have served less than a three-year term.
>    - But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative support has
>    been received for the self-nominations of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma,
>    Bertrand de la Chapelle to fill them.
>    - Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are yet to
>    receive affirmative support.
>
>
> So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying the above
> to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see below).
>
>  On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:42 pm, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:
>
>   But my questions remain.   Since others knew to respond I assume a CFP
> with this info was issued, but I missed it and can’t find it in the BB
> archives (apologies if it turns out this is simply because I’m in a crowded
> noisy hallway and can’t focus).   So again, could you tell when was the
> call for nominations, what was the deadline for submission, and what is the
> process from here?
>
>
> The general nomination procedure was raised at the Bali meeting and was in
> development on the wiki for a while before that, but the proposal to test
> it out for the MAG was in the thread at
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-11/msg00130.html.  Since
> then we've clarified that the steering committee isn't selecting anyone,
> just facilitating the process.
>
>   Looking through other messages from today, I agree with Mawaki that
> when BB (and IGC, and anyone else) sends the secretariat nominations, this
> should be accompanied by a clear explanation of who’s making the
> nominations on what basis and the nomination procedure that’s been followed
> so they have context for what they’re looking at.
>
>
> So this may mean that a joint/combined nomination with the IGC is off the
> table, but we can still do a joint civil society letter explaining the
> different processes and nominees.  That's seems fine to me - we realised
> that a combined nomination was ambitious, and the IGC's process is pretty
> self-contained.
>
>   --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/1c3a7c2f/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Nov 22 04:22:44 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:52:44 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder and all,

Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel comfortable
with. If you have any concerns about this letter being forwarded as is,
please let us know within 24 hours of this email being sent. If there are
no further comments, it will go as is.

For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering
committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and
support it as is.

Thanks and best,
Anja



LETTER FINAL DRAFT
To
Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom
Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the
Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI
Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency
Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and
Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
- CGI.br

We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society
organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing
with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on
the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo,
Brazil by April 2014.

During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us
met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the
following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from
across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:

* Ms Joana Varon Ferraz
* Ms Carolina Rossini
* Mr Carlos A Afonso
* Ms Laura Tresca

This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as
planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall
remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining
to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons
should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with
all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support
their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to
our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society
groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.

If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate to
contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons.

Yours sincerely,

etc

-- 
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/20131122/61a68909/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 04:44:06 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:44:06 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9WEBuewjUfhyAWgxJh51_rLJW0ohCrjHTPTpnkO93OjQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Anja and all involved.

Looks very good to me. I'd suggest for the para. following the list of
names:
"This letter is to *formally express..." and maybe use as shorthand for the
meeting title: "Global *Multistakeholder Meeting".

Best,
mawaki

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mawaki Chango, PhD
Owner, DIGILEXIS Consulting
http://www.digilexis.com
m.chango at digilexis.com
https://twitter.com/digilexis
https://twitter.com/dig_mawaki
Mobile: +225 4448 7764
Skype: digilexis


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> Dear Parminder and all,
>
> Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel
> comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being
> forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being
> sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.
>
> For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering
> committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and
> support it as is.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> LETTER FINAL DRAFT
> To
> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom
> Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at
> the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI
> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency
> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and
> Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering
> Committee - CGI.br
>
> We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society
> organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing
> with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on
> the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo,
> Brazil by April 2014.
>
> During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us
> met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the
> following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from
> across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:
>
> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz
> * Ms Carolina Rossini
> * Mr Carlos A Afonso
> * Ms Laura Tresca
>
> This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as
> planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall
> remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining
> to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons
> should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with
> all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support
> their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to
> our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society
> groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.
>
> If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate
> to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> etc
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/0f6b705e/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Nov 22 04:56:08 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:56:08 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8Ga8fFf_91-B9Y5=Ww72=1cZCSHNAP+S9=r9Uf-0-9dA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>	<528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net>	<795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org>	<528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v8Ga8fFf_91-B9Y5=Ww72=1cZCSHNAP+S9=r9Uf-0-9dA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org>

Dear all

[Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil
society nomcoms.]

In some of the recent threads people have called to question the
legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and
accountability in Best Bits.  I agree it will be good to strengthen Best
Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not
undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to
where it is, or in one another.  We should also not undermine our
ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise
to some pretty daunting challenges.

In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who
have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the
SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far
weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of
two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other
inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising
civil society voices.

I would therefore like to propose the following:

1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people
who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to
continue to serve until 31 July 2014.

2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work
they did in 2013 by the end of this year.

3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a
process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee.

Best

Anriette






From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Nov 22 06:19:34 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:19:34 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] AC MS e-glasnots
Message-ID: <mailman.78.1642081817.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/c43e8573/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Nov 22 06:02:23 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:02:23 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [I-coordination] Just an idea to frame the
 discussion and  know what are the expectations ...
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjSCYim6LGgFKHjQ33XXqRhcwEEFDV9gn=XeAs3kAs0uQ@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAMzo+1bvrTD1Eix74p4io4RxQa8zPZ3fiZ+apQFpg2_Da6MkVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMm+LwjSCYim6LGgFKHjQ33XXqRhcwEEFDV9gn=XeAs3kAs0uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.79.1642081817.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/590a2466/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Fri Nov 22 07:12:25 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:12:25 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
References: <CA60F9EA-953B-426F-A635-2C28723E07B8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8FD15036-2F24-462F-9B6F-585B3C68ED94@uzh.ch>


Resending from my subscribed account, sorry


Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
> Date: November 22, 2013 at 9:07:02 AM GMT-3
> To: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt Best Bits" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 5:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
>> To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:
>> 
>> Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil society representatives, we should simply support the continuation of all civil society representatives who have served less than a three-year term.
> 
> I’m having a bit of trouble with mail volume due to the BA meeting etc but it does seem that most who’ve spoken to the issue have suggested the opposite.  And indeed, looking at the list of current reps Matt sent, my perception is that in the year and half I’ve been on MAG maybe half those names have been really active contributors to discussions etc; I don’t recall who did or didn't attend the meetings and open consultations, complete the massive workshop review tasks, or participate in online groups planning focus sessions.  But as it’d be inappropriate to name names, the only option would be for the SC to undertake the labor intensive approach of having a peek at the transcripts and open list archives to get a sense of things.  Alternatively,
> 
>> But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative support has been received for the self-nominations of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma, Bertrand de la Chapelle to fill them.
> 
> if you’d only be suggesting three newbies (all of which I’d support), you could just just stick with that and hope the secretariat (which is undoubtedly aware of participation levels) and DESA see the opportunity.  But since their decisions also reflect other variables like overall regional balance (not just among the CS contingent) that may not work, and ill-advised premature rotations or failures to rotate have happened in the past.
> 
> Perhaps at a minimum you could stress the need the need for regular 3 year rotations and cycling out all those have been there forever...
> 
>> Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are yet to receive affirmative support.
>> 
>> So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying the above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see below).
>> 
>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:42 pm, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:
>> 
>>> But my questions remain.   Since others knew to respond I assume a CFP with this info was issued, but I missed it and can’t find it in the BB archives (apologies if it turns out this is simply because I’m in a crowded noisy hallway and can’t focus).   So again, could you tell when was the call for nominations, what was the deadline for submission, and what is the process from here?
>> 
>> The general nomination procedure was raised at the Bali meeting and was in development on the wiki for a while before that, but the proposal to test it out for the MAG was in the thread at http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-11/msg00130.html.  Since then we've clarified that the steering committee isn't selecting anyone, just facilitating the process.
> 
> Thanks and sorry, I simply missed the message in which said you wanted names by the 20th.  If people would like, us incumbents could send along the messages we submitted to the IGC nomcom and other networks asking to be renominated, maybe that would help identify who's lights are on and who’s not home...
>> 
>>> Looking through other messages from today, I agree with Mawaki that when BB (and IGC, and anyone else) sends the secretariat nominations, this should be accompanied by a clear explanation of who’s making the nominations on what basis and the nomination procedure that’s been followed so they have context for what they’re looking at.
>> 
>> So this may mean that a joint/combined nomination with the IGC is off the table, but we can still do a joint civil society letter explaining the different processes and nominees.  That's seems fine to me - we realised that a combined nomination was ambitious, and the IGC's process is pretty self-contained.
> 
> Sounds right.
> 
> Parenthetically, I agree with those on the other thread who’ve suggested that BB not descend into circular firing squad mode, not draw odd connections between surveillance states and the steering committee, and simply report on activities and then define a process for renewing the SC in the new year.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/fd9be73f/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Nov 22 08:05:23 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:05:23 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528F5693.3040408@apc.org>

Good letter. Short and to the point.

Anriette


On 22/11/2013 11:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear Parminder and all,
>
> Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel
> comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being
> forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email
> being sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.
>
> For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering
> committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well
> and support it as is.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> LETTER FINAL DRAFT
> To
> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom

> Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy
> at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI

> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency

> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and
> Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering
> Committee - CGI.br
>
> We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society
> organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are
> writing with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder
> Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be
> held in São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014.
>
> 
During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many
> of us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed
> that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim
> Liaisons from across these networks for purposes of planning the
> Global Meeting:


>
> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz


> * Ms Carolina Rossini


> * Mr Carlos A Afonso


> * Ms Laura Tresca
>
> This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement
> as planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons
> shall remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters
> pertaining to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that
> our Liaisons should in the context of these preparations be invited to
> all meetings with all other constituencies as full participants in
> this process. We support their work and look forward to hearing of
> progress in their reports back to our networks that are made up of a
> broad constituency of civil society groups and individuals. They have
> our trust and support.


>
> If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not
> hesitate to contact us at any time, either directly or through the
> above Liaisons.


>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> etc
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/f8c65bed/attachment.htm>

From pimienta at funredes.org  Fri Nov 22 08:07:05 2013
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:07:05 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
  representation
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.80.1642081817.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

My question/comment is about the "etc".
Who sign te letter? Is there a list of cc?

The answer should solve:
- The fact that the "three networks that include civil society 
organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance" are 
not explicitely mentionned in the body of the letter
- The possibility of "please do not hesitate to contact us at any 
time" by providing contact information of the 3 networks.

Should not the constituencies of the 3 networks be mentioned in cc 
(by indicating the discussion list reference)?

Also, dont you think the belonging to the respective(s) 3 network(s) 
of the list of representative names should be explicitely mentionned?


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/fbde2a7d/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov  3 01:52:11 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:22:11 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Day 1: Multi-stakeholder Processes and IGF
 Discussion
In-Reply-To: <07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org>
References: <52635CBD.9080104@apc.org> <07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5275F29B.6030400@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 22 October 2013 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 20/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:

> <snip>
>
>   * A *fluid working group* (to use one of our new catchphrases) could
>     work online to distill it down into a shorter statement of
>     principles, and get underway on that now with the aim of making at
>     least some further progress by the time of our workshop on
>     Thursday.  Would you be willing to be a focal point for the fluid
>     working group?
>   * For the longer-term, we could try to develop these principles into
>     a standard of our own, that we could apply to various Internet
>     governance institutions.  During a workshop yesterday on metrics
>     of multi-stakeholderism, I first raised this idea as a kind of
>     "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes.  As many people
>     have noted during this IGF already, everything from the IETF to
>     ICANN to the IGF is called a "multi-stakeholder process", yet they
>     are so very different.  A *Best Bits "quality label" for
>     multi-stakeholder processes* could help to provide a more useful
>     benchmark for these processes than the WSIS process criteria alone.
>

To be able to do any such kind of quality labelling, BB would itself 
first have to follow very high quality processes. However at the f2f 
meeting when some process issues were raised there were many people 
labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism.  So, not sure 
how we would resolve the apparent contradiction here.....

I do think that when people put themselves up for public roles, 
especially in very political processes like the kind we all are engaged 
in, they need to be held to very high levels of openness, transparency, 
accountability and so on, and these things should not be dismissed as 
unneeded formalism. Democratic public life has been carefully imbued 
with a lot of such 'formalism' over the centuries precisely because of 
this reason.

parminder

>
> Perhaps the same fluid working group could take on both objectives in 
> turn.  What do people think?
>
> -- 
> 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int 
> | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless 
> necessary.
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. 
> For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/08b1fe73/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 08:16:56 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:16:56 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
Message-ID: <vma95jibomnc1dicec7mfjqt.1385126216032@email.android.com>


+1

-------- Original message --------
From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> 
Date: 11/22/2013  8:05 AM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>,"&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS representation 
 
Good letter. Short and to the point.

Anriette


On 22/11/2013 11:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear Parminder and all,

Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.

For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and support it as is. 

Thanks and best,
Anja



LETTER FINAL DRAFT
To
Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom

Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI

Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency

Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br

We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014.


During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:



* Ms Joana Varon Ferraz


* Ms Carolina Rossini


* Mr Carlos A Afonso


* Ms Laura Tresca

This letter is to express our continuing support for this           arrangement as planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.



If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons.



Yours sincerely,

etc

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/c2eea419/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Fri Nov 22 08:17:58 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:17:58 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <20131122130752.DE26532879A@a2knetwork.org>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com> <20131122130752.DE26532879A@a2knetwork.org>
Message-ID: <528F5986.1010503@gold.ac.uk>

Dear Daniela

The three networks are

Internet Governance Caucus
Best Bits
IRP Coalition.

Hope that helps: And well spotted, contact info needed!

Contact info for the IRP Coalition is info at charter.org and URL for the 
purposes of this letter is 
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamiccoalitions/72-ibr

best
MF

On 22/11/2013 13:07, Daniel Pimienta wrote:
> My question/comment is about the "etc".
> Who sign te letter? Is there a list of cc?
>
> The answer should solve:
> - The fact that the "/three networks that include civil society 
> organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance/" are 
> not explicitely mentionned in the body of the letter
> - The possibility of "/please do not hesitate to contact us at any 
> time/" by providing contact information of the 3 networks.
>
> Should not the constituencies of the 3 networks be mentioned in cc (by 
> indicating the discussion list reference)?
>
> Also, dont you think the belonging to the respective(s) 3 network(s) 
> of the list of representative names should be explicitely mentionned?
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. 

-- 
Professor Marianne Franklin
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/e02524a2/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Nov 22 08:47:07 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:47:07 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] AC MS e-glasnots
In-Reply-To: <E1VjolC-0003k8-Qp@igcaucus.org>
References: <E1VjolC-0003k8-Qp@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <7ED1CEBA-B13F-4169-B1ED-3930F7AAFE67@istaff.org>

On Nov 22, 2013, at 8:19 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> This document, I interspred with comments, informations, questions gives us a better understanding of the I* society attemps. Of its ideas, targets and limitations. One could only wish that all the published document are referenced on the wiki.1NET I proposed.

I have no idea if 1net will have a wiki; the topic of collaboration tools needed by 1net
seems like an excellent topic for its steering committee to consider, once seated.

I am going to respond to a few of your comments as I have first hand knowledge and
endeavor to share information whenever possible.

>> From: isoc-advisory-council-bounces at elists.isoc.org [ mailto:isoc-advisory-council-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
>> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:27 PM
>> To: isoc-advisory-council at elists.isoc.org
>> Subject: [isoc-advisory-council] Internet Governance Update - Nov. 15, 2013
>> ...
>> I* CEO Meetings:
>>  
>> With respect to the Montevideo meeting and the statement that was issued afterwards, some background might be helpful
>>  
>> ·       these I* CEO meetings have taken place regularly for the past three years (usually twice a year, several days).
> 
> Thank you to let us know how the Aug. 2012 statement was prepared: what about Steve Mills, President of IEEE? Now we understand that RIRs and ICANN attended.

The list of leaders who have been participating in the I* meetings are the same as those
who signed the Montevideo Statement - ICANN, ISOC, IAB, IETF, the 5 RIRs, and W3C.
(W3C is the latest addition, approximately 18 months ago or so).  To my, knowledge, the 
IEEE leadership has never been present at the I* CEO meetings.

If your reference to an August 2012 statement is to "OpenStand", I will note that it 
was not an I* CEO meeting topic during development, nor did ARIN did participate in 
any meetings about it - we learned of it nearly concurrently with the announcement.

(In the future, it would be helpful if you stated speculation in the form of a question for 
confirmation rather than an assertion of "fact" - thanks!)

>> ·       The meetings are convened and chaired by ISOC, specifically, by me, as ISOC President & CEO, at the request of the other I* organizations. This reflects our broad Mission and the breadth of our organization and responsibilities.
> 
> This tells who is the real leader.

Lynn is a indeed a remarkable leader, and she serves as a great Chair for the meetings.
I would, however, characterize the meetings as a gathering of peers; i.e. no single voice
is dominant.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/cc6bb542/attachment.htm>

From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu  Fri Nov 22 10:35:19 2013
From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:35:19 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill
In-Reply-To: <CAApcLc+Q=+6yAkxJToQL225kWi+UTOdp0JGhwM-AJ+P3_tdOiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeVpBCPZkPH_WH+vgVcCKe04UU0NFPD1ac00y8d8e15_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApcLc+Q=+6yAkxJToQL225kWi+UTOdp0JGhwM-AJ+P3_tdOiw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAApcLcLT=3rq-VLT+kURP01FdGor2v5dyPd2uE735c2tnOWZTA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear colleagues,

Following my email sent last week, FYI I just found a very Important piece
from Andrew Puddeph on the current discussion of the Marco Civil in Brazil
@ http://t.co/QUMJtq4HRS

Best,

Eduardo

Eduardo


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>wrote:

> Thanks a lot Carolina. This is extremely helpful to understand the
> domestic process in Brazil.
>
> I have a question to you and my fellow brazilian colleagues. You said in
> your email that the new version received great support from the Brazilian
> civil society. Does this support include the support of the new art. 11, 12
> and 13?
>
> I would like to receive the reactions/comments from other people in the
> network. Maybe I am missing something but those articles includes
> provisions that form me, first, are not very realistic from an
> implementation perspective, and second, if this idea is supported in
> Brazil, I don´t know how we will oppose the same idea for other countries
> that could use the provisions to go against local civil society groups.
>
> I copied below the articles mentioned above:
>
>   Art. 11. Any process of collection, storage, custody and treatment of
> records, personal data or communications by connection providers and
> Internet applications providers, in which at least one of these acts occurs
> in the national territory, shall respect Brazilian law, the rights to
> Privacy, and the confidentiality of personal data, of private
> communications and records.
>
> § 1 The provisions aforementioned apply to data collected in the national
> territory and the content of communications, in which at least one of the
> terminals is located in Brazil.
>
> § 2 The provisions aforementioned apply even if the activities are carried
> out by legal entity located abroad, provided that at least one member of
> the same economic group owns property/is established in Brazil.
>
> § 3 The connection providers and Internet applications provider shall
> provide, in the form of regulations, information that allow the
> verification regarding compliance with Brazilian legislation regarding the
> collection, custody, storage and processing of data, as well as how the
> provider respects the privacy and secrecy of communications.
>
> § 4 Decree shall regulate the procedure for finding violations of the
> provisions of this article.
>
> Article 12. The Executive Branch, through Decree, may force connection
> providers and Internet applications providers provided for in art. 11, who
> exercise their activities in an organized, professional and economic way,
> to install or use structures for storage, management and dissemination of
> data in the country, considering the size of the providers, its sales in
> Brazil and breadth of the service offering to the Brazilian public.
>
> Article 13. Without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative
> penalties, violations of the rules laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 12
> shall be subject, as appropriate, the following sanctions, applied
> individually or cumulatively:
>
> I - warning, indicating the deadline for corrective action;
>
> II - a fine of up to ten percent of the gross revenues of the economic
> group in Brazil in its last financial year, excluding taxes;
>
> III - Temporary suspension of activities involving the acts specified in
> Clauses 11 and 12, or
>
> IV - the prohibition of the exercise of activities that involve the acts
> referred to in Articles 11 and 12.
>
> Single paragraph. In the case of a foreign company, its subsidiary,
> branch, office or establishment in the country will be jointly and
> severally liable for payment of the penalties aforementioned.
>   I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Best
>
> e
>
>
>
> Eduardo
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> *** sorry for cross-posting ***
>>
>> during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of
>>  the Marco Civil made public last week.
>>
>> This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and
>> has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators.
>>
>> Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text,
>> the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its
>> translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however,
>> they do not mirror what was deleted.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> C
>>
>> --
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/cfac796f/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 22 12:54:19 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:24:19 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <528F9A4B.6030203@itforchange.net>

yes, this looks good...

On Friday 22 November 2013 02:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear Parminder and all,
>
> Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel 
> comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being 
> forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email 
> being sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.
>
> For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering 
> committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well 
> and support it as is.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> LETTER FINAL DRAFT
> To
> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom

> Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy 
> at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI

> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency

> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and 
> Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering 
> Committee - CGI.br
>
> We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society 
> organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are 
> writing with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder 
> Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be 
> held in São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014.
>
> 
During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many 
> of us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed 
> that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim 
> Liaisons from across these networks for purposes of planning the 
> Global Meeting:


>
> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz


> * Ms Carolina Rossini


> * Mr Carlos A Afonso


> * Ms Laura Tresca
>
> This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement 
> as planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons 
> shall remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters 
> pertaining to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that 
> our Liaisons should in the context of these preparations be invited to 
> all meetings with all other constituencies as full participants in 
> this process. We support their work and look forward to hearing of 
> progress in their reports back to our networks that are made up of a 
> broad constituency of civil society groups and individuals. They have 
> our trust and support.


>
> If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not 
> hesitate to contact us at any time, either directly or through the 
> above Liaisons.


>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> etc
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/ca10316a/attachment.htm>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Fri Nov 22 13:13:47 2013
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:43:47 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Global governance and global IG
In-Reply-To: <528F1F2D.8040000@itforchange.net>
References: <528F1F2D.8040000@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <528F9EDB.30309@ITforChange.net>

Climate change is an issue where developed countries are putting their 
own narrow interests on top, and refusing to entertain legitimate 
demands of the developing countries... and in this space (like many 
others), global civil society is mostly with the cause of the developing 
countries. see below 
(http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/ngos-walk-out-of-warsaw-talks/article5376547.ece 
)

/excerpt//
///"In a rare sign of frustration and solidarity, over 800 
representatives of NGOs staged a walkout from the climate negotiations 
here, citing lack of commitment from developed countries and *take over 
by corporate interests.*The environmental NGOs have always been an 
integral part of the climate talks and are allowed to not only sit in 
and watch the negotiations but also intervene at times with their demands.

“How many more years should we wait while people face the fury of 
climate change now? Climate talks in Warsaw are supposed to create 
solutions to deal with increasing typhoons, rising seas and dying 
species. Instead of leading at these talks, rich countries are 
back-tracking, blocking and taking U-turns. This has become the norm and 
this must change,” said Harjeet Singh from ActionAid International 
before joining the walkout. The developed countries have collectively 
blocked progress on two key issues — Loss and Damage and delivering 
finance to the poor countries.On a third track, negotiations have been 
dragging for three days with the rich countries trying to break the 
firewall between the developed and the developing countries and hence 
reneging on their commitments to fight climate,
/end of excerpt ////
/
In the IG space, we have seen large parts of civil society push the 
hegemonic agenda of the  USG and US based transnationals partnership 
....  even as Snowden exposures point out to the extra-ordinary 
collusion between the USG and these large corporates in promoting their 
political and economic interests at the cost of others... And in the IGC 
we have even had strong arguments on how private sector needs to sit as 
an equal on the policy table... though its  obvious that this can only 
serve to stall any regulation in the public interest.

It is unfortunate that these sections of IG civil society seem oblivious 
to the danger that perhaps the biggest threat to the world, its 
democracy as well its economic egalitarianism, is the systemic 
neo-liberalisation of society. The case of climate change governance in 
which corporates wielding unprecedented political (not just economic) 
role and influence are able to thwart meaningful regulation/policy that 
is much needed in global public interest is seen in the cited article. 
Its even more unfortunate that sections of IG civil society are ready to 
actively support and enable corporatist governance models (basically 
'decision making on equal footing' model) which will ensurecontinuance 
and further strengthening of the political-economic hegemony in IG.

regards,
Guru

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/f72eb653/attachment.htm>

From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG  Fri Nov 22 13:23:45 2013
From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG))
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:23:45 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill
In-Reply-To: <CAApcLcLT=3rq-VLT+kURP01FdGor2v5dyPd2uE735c2tnOWZTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeVpBCPZkPH_WH+vgVcCKe04UU0NFPD1ac00y8d8e15_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApcLc+Q=+6yAkxJToQL225kWi+UTOdp0JGhwM-AJ+P3_tdOiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApcLcLT=3rq-VLT+kURP01FdGor2v5dyPd2uE735c2tnOWZTA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CEB50B00.53D5%mgodwin@internews.org>


Andrew’s piece is very good and highly relevant, and I’ve been making similar points in conversations I’ve been having regarding localization requirements proposed in other countries (e.g., Indonesia).


—Mike


--
Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
mgodwin at internews.org<mailto:mgodwin at internews.org> | Mobile 415-793-4446
Skype mnemonic1026
Address 1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA

INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.
www.internews.org<http://www.internews.org/> | @internews<http://www.twitter.com/internews> | facebook.com/internews<http://www.facebook.com/internews>

From: Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu<mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>>
Date: Friday, November 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM
To: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill


Dear colleagues,

Following my email sent last week, FYI I just found a very Important piece from Andrew Puddeph on the current discussion of the Marco Civil in Brazil @ http://t.co/QUMJtq4HRS

Best,

Eduardo

Eduardo


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu<mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
Thanks a lot Carolina. This is extremely helpful to understand the domestic process in Brazil.

I have a question to you and my fellow brazilian colleagues. You said in your email that the new version received great support from the Brazilian civil society. Does this support include the support of the new art. 11, 12 and 13?

I would like to receive the reactions/comments from other people in the network. Maybe I am missing something but those articles includes provisions that form me, first, are not very realistic from an implementation perspective, and second, if this idea is supported in Brazil, I don´t know how we will oppose the same idea for other countries that could use the provisions to go against local civil society groups.

I copied below the articles mentioned above:

Art. 11. Any process of collection, storage, custody and treatment of records, personal data or communications by connection providers and Internet applications providers, in which at least one of these acts occurs in the national territory, shall respect Brazilian law, the rights to Privacy, and the confidentiality of personal data, of private communications and records.


§ 1 The provisions aforementioned apply to data collected in the national territory and the content of communications, in which at least one of the terminals is located in Brazil.


§ 2 The provisions aforementioned apply even if the activities are carried out by legal entity located abroad, provided that at least one member of the same economic group owns property/is established in Brazil.


§ 3 The connection providers and Internet applications provider shall provide, in the form of regulations, information that allow the verification regarding compliance with Brazilian legislation regarding the collection, custody, storage and processing of data, as well as how the provider respects the privacy and secrecy of communications.


§ 4 Decree shall regulate the procedure for finding violations of the provisions of this article.


Article 12. The Executive Branch, through Decree, may force connection providers and Internet applications providers provided for in art. 11, who exercise their activities in an organized, professional and economic way, to install or use structures for storage, management and dissemination of data in the country, considering the size of the providers, its sales in Brazil and breadth of the service offering to the Brazilian public.


Article 13. Without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative penalties, violations of the rules laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 12 shall be subject, as appropriate, the following sanctions, applied individually or cumulatively:


I - warning, indicating the deadline for corrective action;


II - a fine of up to ten percent of the gross revenues of the economic group in Brazil in its last financial year, excluding taxes;


III - Temporary suspension of activities involving the acts specified in Clauses 11 and 12, or


IV - the prohibition of the exercise of activities that involve the acts referred to in Articles 11 and 12.


Single paragraph. In the case of a foreign company, its subsidiary, branch, office or establishment in the country will be jointly and severally liable for payment of the penalties aforementioned.


I look forward to hearing from you.

Best

e



Eduardo


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear all,

*** sorry for cross-posting ***

during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of  the Marco Civil made public last week.

This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators.

Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text, the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however, they do not mirror what was deleted.

Best,

C

--
Carolina Rossini
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open Technology Institute
New America Foundation
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/ZUja!r6CkCbGX2PQPOmvUk8LIR8eqmo3esqXtQrSFdgSGMAeMHfBOcFZzBJyC1pQS8p3I2jFYXtsVqdfswMBgw==> to report this email as spam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/6c8c7508/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Nov 22 13:30:50 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:30:50 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] AC MS e-glasnots
In-Reply-To: <7ED1CEBA-B13F-4169-B1ED-3930F7AAFE67@istaff.org>
References: <E1VjolC-0003k8-Qp@igcaucus.org>
 <7ED1CEBA-B13F-4169-B1ED-3930F7AAFE67@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.81.1642081818.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/dd03ca17/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 13:35:26 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:35:26 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <528F9A4B.6030203@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com> <528F9A4B.6030203@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <02cb01cee7b1$9d70b500$d8521f00$@gmail.com>

I’ll sign on to this in my personal capacity… We are currently working on procedures for having the Community Informatics network being in a position to endorse things like this.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:54 AM
To: Anja Kovacs
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS representation

 

yes, this looks good...

On Friday 22 November 2013 02:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:

Dear Parminder and all,

Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.

For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and support it as is. 

Thanks and best,
Anja




LETTER FINAL DRAFT
To
Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom

Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI

Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency

Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br

We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014.


During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:



* Ms Joana Varon Ferraz


* Ms Carolina Rossini


* Mr Carlos A Afonso


* Ms Laura Tresca

This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.



If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons.



Yours sincerely,

etc

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/4eaf5f5a/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 13:59:16 2013
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:59:16 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <02cb01cee7b1$9d70b500$d8521f00$@gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <528F9A4B.6030203@itforchange.net> <02cb01cee7b1$9d70b500$d8521f00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0dN=tS_qiPDp=gDkYG-jT1udgvF1kfRBJoxCAdRdgycQ@mail.gmail.com>

Very good.
Marília


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:35 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> I’ll sign on to this in my personal capacity… We are currently working on
> procedures for having the Community Informatics network being in a position
> to endorse things like this.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2013 9:54 AM
> *To:* Anja Kovacs
> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
> representation
>
>
>
> yes, this looks good...
>
> On Friday 22 November 2013 02:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder and all,
>
> Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel
> comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being
> forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being
> sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.
>
> For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering
> committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and
> support it as is.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
> LETTER FINAL DRAFT
> To
> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom
> Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at
> the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI
> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency
> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and
> Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering
> Committee - CGI.br
>
> We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society
> organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing
> with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on
> the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo,
> Brazil by April 2014.
>
> During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us
> met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the
> following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from
> across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:
>
> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz
> * Ms Carolina Rossini
> * Mr Carlos A Afonso
> * Ms Laura Tresca
>
> This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as
> planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall
> remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining
> to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons
> should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with
> all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support
> their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to
> our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society
> groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.
>
> If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate
> to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> etc
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/8567d943/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov  3 02:24:55 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:54:55 +0530
Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with
 fadi et all
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557BBBE10@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <CALTAiTojBK1+XPk1feU7NdwjLYrQ5uzZDyZp4f=EwAVesygPZA@mail.gmail.com> <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <CALTAiTrcaXg4g1q159253=ozNxoh6KMwbJOJ_j1DLm4QCzwixg@mail.gmail.com> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <CAK-FJAecka2s+=Ror16xq6PU0-QABZ=ruJPaC66QtH6NwYr=6g@mail.gmail.com> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <DDDA06A2-904C-4452-97A5-98ED60BC9EF8@istaff.org> <CAJqNAHBb8ukTb6MZHt4bpY97PkT63pevJSyVrgPeaa7Kmwrz_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcKqKZQLENCFKHOTgS9b3XZQ7xqg65bOOyc+h5vAx3zh_A@mail.gmail.com> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557BBBE10@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <5275FA47.5080209@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 31 October 2013 10:14 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> I think the precise position is that Best Bits is a platform that 
> enables action/collaboration.  As a platform it therefore does not 
> sign letters  in its own right – a letter goes from the organisations 
> willing to sign it directly not BB itself.  It’s an important 
> distinction and one we need to be careful about.
>

I saw an apparent direct role of Bestbits (BB) steering committee with 
regard to the most recent statement developed here, which does not fit 
with the above 'platform' nature of BB.

One also knows that recently a statement that has wide acceptability and 
a little opposition (which opposition was also mostly not substantive 
and only to the extent of need to postpone the issuing of the statement) 
was refused by the steering committee to be hosted on the BB platform, 
with no clear reasons given thereof.

I also know that once the BB platform has been employed, the concerned 
statements often get mentioned as BB statements, including by steering 
committee members.. I also know that outside institutions that receive 
these statements, and other outside actors like the press and so on, 
refer to most of not all of these statements as BB statements.

And with the very high profile that BB is increasingly building as the 
primary civil society group in this area (to a good extent at the cost 
of IGC, although in the present narrative I will stay neutral in terms 
of any value judgements on this shift) provides a great amount of new 
'powers' like being the contact person to connect with other powerful 
groups, sending reps to various processes etc.... And increasingly such 
'powers' come to the custodians of the BB group. (BTW, I will like to 
know from the BB steering committee whether any such contacts were made 
with them at the Bali IGF, like to meet different 'other groups', send 
reps, etc, and if so, how did they respond to it).

Basically, what I am saying here is that the processes around the BB 
group, need to be taken seriously, and should be very transparent, 
responsive and accountable. Sometimes by giving 'neutral' and 'no 
specific power' kind of self descriptions, like that of being 'only a 
platform', one can escape such formal requirements expected from those 
who manage the concerned processes.

I think that BB group is a CS coalition  (I see the term still being 
used by a few steering committee members right now on this elist) and 
accordingly should follow very high standards of processes of 
custodian-ship or trusteeship for the concerned persons/ organisations. 
Most decision making should be done by the larger coalition by a process 
set up, as appropriate,  for that purpose.

While BB employ some 'new age' flexible processes, which could be  a 
very useful thing - the term 'platform' should not be used (not that 
anyone right now is using it in this way) to escape responsibility which 
comes with managing positions and roles of power.

In the network age, we all know how custodians of 'platforms' - for 
social networking, knowledge/ information listing and sharing, and so on 
- do increasingly mis use their powers, while insisting that they really 
have no power and are merely process managers of 'neutral platforms'. We 
have to remain very vary that such a problematic phenomenon - kind of 
endemic to network age power structures - does not become a part of 
civil society arrangements.

Power is best recognised where it exists, rather that deny it. Such 
recognition makes it much easier to deal with power, rather than its 
invisiblisation.

I prefer that we recognise the coalition/ network nature of BB group, 
and accordingly are also mindful of the power inherent in custodianship 
of its various processes - and accordingly develop all the necessary and 
appropriate processes to manage it.

We can develop conditions of membership of this coalition/ network, 
which can be of belonging to civil society organisations with open 
statement of interest, objectives, activities and funding, and of 
individuals, who come with civil society background and credentials.  
And then we can develop processes of decision making that are 
members-driven.

parminder

> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org*
>
> *From:*ebertoni65 at gmail.com [mailto:ebertoni65 at gmail.com] *On Behalf 
> Of *Eduardo Bertoni
> *Sent:* 31 October 2013 16:32
> *To:* Anja Kovacs
> *Cc:* John Curran; Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting 
> with fadi et all
>
> Dear all,
>
> I jump (late) to this debate. My reaction is, perhaps, more related to 
> the core of BestBits. Something that I asked in Bali, and frankly, I 
> didn´t get any answer. For me the core question is about what BestBits 
> is. Is it a platform, that NGOs and other could use for debate and at 
> some point use the technological platform to work on letters or 
> statements? Is it a network, from where ALL the participants have a 
> voice, have the chance to open deliberations, and at the end, reach to 
> decisions to execute some concrete actions ON BEHALF of the network, 
> meaning ALL the organizations? Is it a network where decisions are 
> delegated to some groups?
>
> I was very concern with the language used in the past to present, for 
> example, the last letters or statements. Concrete example: I heard 
> that the letter to the President of Brazil was a letter coming from 
> BestBits. Well, I didn´t signed the letter and I think that I 
> participate in Best Bits. In fact was a letter signed by a group of 
> people or organizations, not BY Best Bits. Am I wrong?
>
> Maybe I am introducing a philosophical discussion, maybe is something 
> already discussed that I don´t know, maybe some people use the word 
> platform and network as synonymous. What I strongly believe is this: 
> if it is not clear what BestBits is and how takes decisions, we will 
> have a never end discussion.
>
> Best
>
> Eduardo
>
>
> Eduardo
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Anja Kovacs 
> <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have been in favour of keeping some discussions closed, at least in 
> the early stages, for quite a while, and have been so for the reasons 
> John and Kivuva point out: other stakeholder groups do so all the 
> time, and a strategic argument to keep parts of a conversation limited 
> to a smaller group does not mean that conversation cannot be reported 
> back on to a larger group. As long as the latter happens, need more 
> closed conversations really be a problem?
>
> As again confirmed during the Best Bits meeting, two specific 
> characteristics of Best Bits as a network are that it is 
> action-oriented and that it seeks to bridge the differences and 
> disagreements between the Global South and North.
>
> To my mind, the strategy of being transparent at all times is one of 
> the main reasons why action is often inhibited and civil society is 
> often less effective than it could be. This is not only because we put 
> all our cards on the table all the time - something which puts other 
> stakeholders at an advantage. It is also because fully open lists do 
> not encourage sharing certain kinds of information and ideas that 
> could actually help to massively improve effectiveness of civil 
> society action (and as is the case so often, perhaps Global South 
> civil society is perhaps more vulnerable here than Global North civil 
> society).
>
> In fact, if Best Bits has been working, it is because so much is 
> actually done by small groups of people who want to do something, 
> trust each other, start coordinating, and then bring their ideas, once 
> crystallised, to the main list (what are now called "fluid working 
> groups" in BB lingo ;)
>
> If we ignore this reality, this will only be at our own peril.
>
> I don't see transparency as an end in itself, but is a means to an 
> end, which is the creation of a level playing field. Because of power 
> differentials, different stakeholder groups are differently placed in 
> this field, and whatever strategies we decide on should keep this in 
> mind. The redistribution of power should drive our actions, not 
> transparency as such.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
> Anja
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/dcfcb7ad/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Nov 22 14:14:28 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 00:44:28 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9WEBuewjUfhyAWgxJh51_rLJW0ohCrjHTPTpnkO93OjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v9WEBuewjUfhyAWgxJh51_rLJW0ohCrjHTPTpnkO93OjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHA9i=hpVVWCUqicTwytMN-Ca3DTMGpF-wOgxFbwcyFxNA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Mawaki,

Thank you for these comments. I will share them with our liaisons and
others who were involved in drafting the latter. However, seeing that these
are purely editorial, if I have not heard back from them in time, I hope
you will agree to us going ahead with the letter as is?

Do please let us know.

Thanks and best regards,
Anja


On 22 November 2013 15:14, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Anja and all involved.
>
> Looks very good to me. I'd suggest for the para. following the list of
> names:
> "This letter is to *formally express..." and maybe use as shorthand for
> the meeting title: "Global *Multistakeholder Meeting".
>
> Best,
> mawaki
>
>  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> Mawaki Chango, PhD
> Owner, DIGILEXIS Consulting
> http://www.digilexis.com
> m.chango at digilexis.com
> https://twitter.com/digilexis
> https://twitter.com/dig_mawaki
> Mobile: +225 4448 7764
> Skype: digilexis
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:
>
>> Dear Parminder and all,
>>
>> Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel
>> comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being
>> forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being
>> sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.
>>
>> For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering
>> committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and
>> support it as is.
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>
>> LETTER FINAL DRAFT
>> To
>> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom
>> Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at
>> the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI
>> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency
>> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and
>> Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
>> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering
>> Committee - CGI.br
>>
>> We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society
>> organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing
>> with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on
>> the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo,
>> Brazil by April 2014.
>>
>> During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us
>> met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the
>> following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from
>> across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:
>>
>> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz
>> * Ms Carolina Rossini
>> * Mr Carlos A Afonso
>> * Ms Laura Tresca
>>
>> This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as
>> planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall
>> remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining
>> to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons
>> should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with
>> all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support
>> their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to
>> our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society
>> groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.
>>
>> If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate
>> to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> etc
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>


-- 
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/20131123/211698c3/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Nov 22 14:18:48 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 00:48:48 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <20131122130755.C38093287A7@a2knetwork.org>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131122130755.C38093287A7@a2knetwork.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHC5JX22OH0FkV6SFMOi-Df9YRjFwigqn_d__B1wtCpgNA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Daniel,

I think Marianne has already answered most of your questions, but I wanted
to get a clarification on this one:

On 22 November 2013 18:37, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:

>  Also, dont you think the belonging to the respective(s) 3 network(s) of
> the list of representative names should be explicitely mentionned?
>

Could you please explain in more detail what you mean exactly?

Many thanks,
Anja


>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131123/ddcf7431/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 14:19:22 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:19:22 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHA9i=hpVVWCUqicTwytMN-Ca3DTMGpF-wOgxFbwcyFxNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v9WEBuewjUfhyAWgxJh51_rLJW0ohCrjHTPTpnkO93OjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHA9i=hpVVWCUqicTwytMN-Ca3DTMGpF-wOgxFbwcyFxNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9FMZqZdRqFh0hs4XZop317ErDWJzuMU4-T0rXbD7qkgg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Anja,

Absolutely! Please go ahead with it. Mines are certainly not the most
meaningful comment from what I have read afterwards.
Thank you for considering.
Best regards,

Mawaki



On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> Dear Mawaki,
>
> Thank you for these comments. I will share them with our liaisons and
> others who were involved in drafting the latter. However, seeing that these
> are purely editorial, if I have not heard back from them in time, I hope
> you will agree to us going ahead with the letter as is?
>
> Do please let us know.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Anja
>
>
> On 22 November 2013 15:14, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Anja and all involved.
>>
>> Looks very good to me. I'd suggest for the para. following the list of
>> names:
>> "This letter is to *formally express..." and maybe use as shorthand for
>> the meeting title: "Global *Multistakeholder Meeting".
>>
>> Best,
>> mawaki
>>
>>  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>> Mawaki Chango, PhD
>> Owner, DIGILEXIS Consulting
>> http://www.digilexis.com
>> m.chango at digilexis.com
>> https://twitter.com/digilexis
>> https://twitter.com/dig_mawaki
>> Mobile: +225 4448 7764
>> Skype: digilexis
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Parminder and all,
>>>
>>> Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel
>>> comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being
>>> forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being
>>> sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.
>>>
>>> For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering
>>> committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and
>>> support it as is.
>>>
>>> Thanks and best,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LETTER FINAL DRAFT
>>> To
>>> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom
>>> Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at
>>> the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI
>>> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency
>>> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and
>>> Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
>>> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering
>>> Committee - CGI.br
>>>
>>> We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society
>>> organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing
>>> with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on
>>> the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo,
>>> Brazil by April 2014.
>>>
>>> During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of
>>> us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the
>>> following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from
>>> across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:
>>>
>>> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> * Ms Carolina Rossini
>>> * Mr Carlos A Afonso
>>> * Ms Laura Tresca
>>>
>>> This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as
>>> planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall
>>> remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining
>>> to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons
>>> should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with
>>> all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support
>>> their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to
>>> our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society
>>> groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.
>>>
>>> If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate
>>> to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons.
>>>
>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>
>>> etc
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/20131122/df687439/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Nov 22 14:30:01 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:00:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <02cb01cee7b1$9d70b500$d8521f00$@gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<528F9A4B.6030203@itforchange.net>
	<02cb01cee7b1$9d70b500$d8521f00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDUVk-9qYK44D5A9rhNWrAE=a_Fh00CFKPZ8cHpodHEow@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Mike,

Many thanks for your support. What we are asking for here, however, is only
whether people agree to have Best Bits sign on to this letter. If you would
like to sign on as an individual as well, please copy your message to the
IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC as well, as I think they should all be
informed of this.

My own sense (and I am purely speaking on my own behalf here) is that the
letter has far more power if signatories are either networks or people in
an institutional capacity, rather than individuals, but perhaps others
think differently about this.

Looking forward to seeing the Community Informatics network agreeing on an
appropriate procedure. It will be great to join forces with one more
network.

Best regards,
Anja



On 23 November 2013 00:05, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I’ll sign on to this in my personal capacity… We are currently working on
> procedures for having the Community Informatics network being in a position
> to endorse things like this.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2013 9:54 AM
> *To:* Anja Kovacs
> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
> representation
>
>
>
> yes, this looks good...
>
> On Friday 22 November 2013 02:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder and all,
>
> Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel
> comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being
> forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being
> sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.
>
> For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering
> committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and
> support it as is.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
> LETTER FINAL DRAFT
> To
> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom
> Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at
> the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI
> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency
> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and
> Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering
> Committee - CGI.br
>
> We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society
> organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing
> with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on
> the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo,
> Brazil by April 2014.
>
> During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us
> met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the
> following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from
> across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:
>
> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz
> * Ms Carolina Rossini
> * Mr Carlos A Afonso
> * Ms Laura Tresca
>
> This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as
> planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall
> remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining
> to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons
> should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with
> all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support
> their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to
> our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society
> groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.
>
> If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate
> to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> etc
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
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/20131123/0ef63db2/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Nov 22 14:29:30 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:29:30 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance
In-Reply-To: <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>	<528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net>	<795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org>	<528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v8Ga8fFf_91-B9Y5=Ww72=1cZCSHNAP+S9=r9Uf-0-9dA@mail.gmail.com> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org>
Message-ID: <6205053C093D42EBB17A87D2B199B21D@Toshiba>

+1.

a good proposal to get things back on track I think.



-----Original Message----- 
From: Anriette Esterhuysen 
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 8:56 PM 
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance 

Dear all

[Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil
society nomcoms.]

In some of the recent threads people have called to question the
legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and
accountability in Best Bits.  I agree it will be good to strengthen Best
Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not
undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to
where it is, or in one another.  We should also not undermine our
ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise
to some pretty daunting challenges.

In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who
have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the
SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far
weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of
two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other
inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising
civil society voices.

I would therefore like to propose the following:

1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people
who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to
continue to serve until 31 July 2014.

2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work
they did in 2013 by the end of this year.

3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a
process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee.

Best

Anriette











____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Nov 22 14:30:52 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:00:52 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9FMZqZdRqFh0hs4XZop317ErDWJzuMU4-T0rXbD7qkgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v9WEBuewjUfhyAWgxJh51_rLJW0ohCrjHTPTpnkO93OjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHA9i=hpVVWCUqicTwytMN-Ca3DTMGpF-wOgxFbwcyFxNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v9FMZqZdRqFh0hs4XZop317ErDWJzuMU4-T0rXbD7qkgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHC1CDBd=_VLUxDGA6+o27aHfPCnvQDTQNEfqsariG3BUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Mawaki,

Many thanks for your understanding - really appreciated.

Best regards,
Anja


On 23 November 2013 00:49, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Anja,
>
> Absolutely! Please go ahead with it. Mines are certainly not the most
> meaningful comment from what I have read afterwards.
> Thank you for considering.
> Best regards,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:
>
>> Dear Mawaki,
>>
>> Thank you for these comments. I will share them with our liaisons and
>> others who were involved in drafting the latter. However, seeing that these
>> are purely editorial, if I have not heard back from them in time, I hope
>> you will agree to us going ahead with the letter as is?
>>
>> Do please let us know.
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>> On 22 November 2013 15:14, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Anja and all involved.
>>>
>>> Looks very good to me. I'd suggest for the para. following the list of
>>> names:
>>> "This letter is to *formally express..." and maybe use as shorthand for
>>> the meeting title: "Global *Multistakeholder Meeting".
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> mawaki
>>>
>>>  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>>> Mawaki Chango, PhD
>>> Owner, DIGILEXIS Consulting
>>> http://www.digilexis.com
>>> m.chango at digilexis.com
>>> https://twitter.com/digilexis
>>> https://twitter.com/dig_mawaki
>>> Mobile: +225 4448 7764
>>> Skype: digilexis
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Parminder and all,
>>>>
>>>> Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel
>>>> comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being
>>>> forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being
>>>> sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.
>>>>
>>>> For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering
>>>> committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and
>>>> support it as is.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and best,
>>>> Anja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LETTER FINAL DRAFT
>>>> To
>>>> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom
>>>> Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at
>>>> the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI
>>>> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency
>>>> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and
>>>> Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
>>>> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering
>>>> Committee - CGI.br
>>>>
>>>> We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society
>>>> organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing
>>>> with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on
>>>> the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo,
>>>> Brazil by April 2014.
>>>>
>>>> During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of
>>>> us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the
>>>> following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from
>>>> across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:
>>>>
>>>> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>> * Ms Carolina Rossini
>>>> * Mr Carlos A Afonso
>>>> * Ms Laura Tresca
>>>>
>>>> This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement
>>>> as planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall
>>>> remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining
>>>> to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons
>>>> should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with
>>>> all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support
>>>> their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to
>>>> our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society
>>>> groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.
>>>>
>>>> If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not
>>>> hesitate to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above
>>>> Liaisons.
>>>>
>>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> etc
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>
>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>
>


-- 
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/20131123/8195fb57/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 14:33:21 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:33:21 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC5JX22OH0FkV6SFMOi-Df9YRjFwigqn_d__B1wtCpgNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131122130755.C38093287A7@a2knetwork.org>
	<CAJqNAHC5JX22OH0FkV6SFMOi-Df9YRjFwigqn_d__B1wtCpgNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-LTOmqdGhpKGs1=w7FTy+tBTMtux6b5kY2JBNcQ+sdXg@mail.gmail.com>

Not to speak for Daniel but (since you may be pressed by time) from the way
I read that part, it is a suggestion that you might want to specify for
each one of the Liaisons which of the 3 signatory networks they are part
of.

I'm just serving as an interpret here, and have no position on that.
.... You're welcome Anja. Thank you for your stewardship.
Best,

Mawaki


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> Dear Daniel,
>
> I think Marianne has already answered most of your questions, but I wanted
> to get a clarification on this one:
>
> On 22 November 2013 18:37, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:
>
>>  Also, dont you think the belonging to the respective(s) 3 network(s) of
>> the list of representative names should be explicitely mentionned?
>>
>
> Could you please explain in more detail what you mean exactly?
>
> Many thanks,
> Anja
>
>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and
>> is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/488fd807/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 14:53:36 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:53:36 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance
In-Reply-To: <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>	<528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net>	<00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>	<528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net>	<795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org>	<528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v8Ga8fFf_91-B9Y5=Ww72=1cZCSHNAP+S9=r9Uf-0-9dA@mail.gmail.com> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org>
Message-ID: <03ac01cee7bc$8962bb20$9c283160$@gmail.com>

Hi Anriette,

(very quick note..

No aspersions cast or intended on any of the eminent colleagues involved with BB development and current leadership.

However, your note is basically the same as the one my original post was responding to and my response to it is the same -- trust but verify...

Also, the issue of the timing and urgency rings rather hollow since as you well know BB has been around now for about a year and a half which should be more than enough time to ensure an appropriately accountable and transparent governance structure.

In response to your proposal I have a counterproposal which would be to immediately repurpose and reopen the "the steering committee" to be an open "working group".  Have this working group report back to the BB list within a month with a proposal for a governance procedure/structure, have this proposal go to the list for approval through rough consensus and then proceed from there. 

And just to note, if your proposal and timing are agreed to, effectively all of the most significant decisions re: BB's position concerning the crucial upcoming meetings--Brazil and its follow-on, WSIS + 10, the MDG (and SDG?) summit with respect to MS procedures and policies going forward, public positioning of BB, and nominations to various MS groups -will all have been more or less finalized by the time a new and fully legitimized/representative Steering Committee will have been put into place.  Of course, I have no doubt at all that this was not the underlying purpose of your proposal but it would quite obviously be the effect.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:56 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance

Dear all

[Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil society nomcoms.]

In some of the recent threads people have called to question the legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and accountability in Best Bits.  I agree it will be good to strengthen Best Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to where it is, or in one another.  We should also not undermine our ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise to some pretty daunting challenges.

In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising civil society voices.

I would therefore like to propose the following:

1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to continue to serve until 31 July 2014.

2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work they did in 2013 by the end of this year.

3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee.

Best

Anriette







From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 15:33:53 2013
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:33:53 -0200
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
 <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Andrew,

Thanks. That was an excellent move to channels us into more productive
paths.
I would like to work on 3. I think Joana will also be interested, so let me
talk to her and see how we share tasks and maybe collaborate on 3.1 and
3.2. Will confirm later.

I would also like to be able to contribute with ideas to topic 1, specially
on remote participation.

Best
Marília




On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Matthias C. Kettemann <
matthias.kettemann at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm also happy to provide international legal analysis regarding #2 and 3.
>
> Cheers
> Matthias
>
>
> Am 21.11.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:
>
>  Thanks, Carolina, for sharing.
>
> The Web We Want community  is also willing to contribute.
>
> Best
>
> N
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Happy to help, mainly regarding to 2. For that, pls find attached the
>> comparative chart mapping different statements from different stakeholders.
>> I have sent this around in the past, but it may be useful at this point.
>> Next steps?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I should have said:
>>>
>>> We in APC are interested in contributing to items 1, 2 and 3.
>>>
>>> Valeria
>>>
>>> On 21/11/2013, at 14:27, Deborah Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew, all, Also interested contributing to outputs 2 and 3 (3.2
>>> specifically).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Deborah
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marianne Franklin <
>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Dear all
>>>>
>>>> If I could note that based on its track record, and contributions in
>>>> this regard this year along, the IRP Coaltion would continue to contribute
>>>> to Output 3 (Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based
>>>> on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>>
>>>> How it can contribute to other points is for the list to discuss and
>>>> decide, so I am noting the above as point of record.
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>> MF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21/11/2013 15:12, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>>  On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating
>>>> people to different steering groups.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the
>>>> summit itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in
>>>> President Rouseff’s speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet
>>>> governance, I am interested in working on the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ·         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that
>>>> keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is
>>>> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the
>>>> IGF)
>>>>
>>>> ·         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle
>>>> dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that
>>>> privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of
>>>> expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free
>>>> expression.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is
>>>> possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and
>>>> I’m assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage
>>>> I’m asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put
>>>> together submissions along these lines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.
>>>>
>>>>  Valeria
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Reminding you of the proposed work plan – I’m volunteering for
>>>> item 3 and to contribute to item 2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        OUTPUTS
>>>>
>>>>    1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>>>    participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>>>    2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on
>>>>    Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>>    3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>>>    multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>>>       1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>>>>       Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>>>       2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the
>>>>       WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TIMELINE
>>>>
>>>>    1. Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
>>>>    2. First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
>>>>    3. Feedback from main list by January 31.
>>>>    4. Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by
>>>>    March 1, 2014.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>>>
>>>> Executive Director
>>>>
>>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>>
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>>>> andrewpuddephatt
>>>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>> Director and Representative
>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+44 (0) 771 247 2987
>>>> Skype: mshears
>>>>
>>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professor Marianne Franklin
>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>>>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>>> Dept. of Media & Communications
>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>>>> @GloCommhttps://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>> @netrights
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IRP mailing list
>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Deborah Brown
>>> Senior Policy Analyst
>>>  Access | accessnow.org
>>> rightscon.org
>>>
>>> @deblebrown
>>>  PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>


-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/d13f844c/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 15:52:39 2013
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:52:39 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeting - CS representation
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11mgTS7R+-7s1zd6UHRAOCAwa_22k0CxwD_oyBoeLmmwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528EDFE1.9030909@itforchange.net> <CADFgh11mgTS7R+-7s1zd6UHRAOCAwa_22k0CxwD_oyBoeLmmwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK34W2_bvdPDe=S2dgDti-xKW4-LHQpUsYxXfcn6GCA0Fg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder,

So far there is no 1net structure that we could engage in. People who
subscribe to the 1net list get no response. Direct e-mails to Adiel also do
not produce effect. This was heavily criticized by different actors during
ICANN, but by the end of the meeting, nothing had changed. While there is
no 1net and no clarity about models of participation, we should definitely
send the letter and request the inclusion of our liaisons.  Only an
observation about the agenda: as far as I understood, 25th is the day of
the CGI.br steering committee internal meeting, in which they will discuss
the conference together for the first time. 26th is the day of a second
announcement about the event.

Marília


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Parminder, all
>
> The draft is ready and Joana is handling its translation.
>
> Should be shared any moment from now
>
> N
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:38 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  All
>>
>> I am not sure whether we are still going to send a letter to the
>> Brazilians about independent liaison between civil society and the
>> Brazilian hosts, or if we are now settled on having that done through
>> the 1net structure. (And of course to also put forward the four names for
>> our proposed liaison structure.) Have we now dropped that idea?
>>
>> I understand that a meeting/ announcement on the 25th will further cement
>> the emerging organising structure, and there isnt much time left if we
>> indeed want to make such a communication to the Brazilians. As I said a few
>> days back, if such a letter has to go, it has to go 'today', and personally
>> delivered to highest authority with request for acknowledgement and
>> response. For an annoucement to be made on monday, people would have mostly
>> decided on what to announce by Friday..
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/fd78fcab/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Sun Nov  3 07:47:30 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:47:30 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Steering Group - who are we?
In-Reply-To: <5275EEEF.8030806@itforchange.net>
References: <788D29EF-3039-4905-B0DD-15D0F40EBA3A@ciroap.org> <20131025035459.4f131496@swan.bollow.ch> <CADFgh10bGrzY2wfhkcqYC=-_L548_sgSCEv_o3Q9xC7B3iC=xw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHD_qfrhpuAGQqeW50nLdBHtffQbyQW75YCzTZGqbWHyFw@mail.gmail.com> <5269F415.7080302@itforchange.net> <EDE8D93C-5740-4DBE-B50A-7CEDE82AF069@ciroap.org> <4995fa1a166549928c07b7558a06bd56.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <9E000712-0B79-408E-8E01-B1ACB1BE89F4@ciroap.org> <5275EEEF.8030806@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <527645E2.1000308@gold.ac.uk>

Dear all

I have taken the liberty of revising the original thread title to 
address Parminder's request for more clarity about the BB steering 
group, at least from my perspective.

It is an interim steering group in that a number of us (self)nominated 
or were nominated to join. I have been on there in an individual 
capacity but also on behalf of the IRP Coalition, both capacities still 
on an interim basis as setting up Best Bits was done quite quickly and 
to date indeed many decisions and actions have taken place at a fast tempo.

So, as is the case with all the various networks we are all 
participating in I look forward to this interim group becoming an 
endorsed or elected one for all the reasons that Parminder and others 
have noted.

To the Statement that Best Bets has authored; this statement, drafted at 
the Best Bits pre-IGF meeting in Bali, was indeed released without all 
of the Steering Group being present. As it is now a baseline document 
for ongoing discussions it now being public can hopefully focus those 
discussions as the ICANN-Brazil Summit meeting remains as yet unclear in 
terms of participation and intent. To this end, the report that Joana 
Varon and others compiled of the Bali meetings is very helpful for us 
all to consider.

To me, thinking back over several months of intense email traffic and 
output emerging from the Best Bits initiative, perhaps the adage "more 
haste, less speed" might be one we could apply within the interim 
steering group and as a wider network that dovetails with many others. 
Ignoring or overlooking these many others is not the best way forward in 
the long run, and it is the long run that matters I think even if things 
appear to be happening at breakneck speed. Appearances can be deceiving!

Hope this clarifies things from one Best Bits Steering group member 
perspective; I am claiming here to speak for all others. In terms of my 
current responsibility towards informing the IRP Coalition of key Best 
Bits outputs, the current steering group is working on these procedures 
as indeed we must.

best
MF



On 03/11/2013 06:36, parminder wrote:
>
> On Saturday 26 October 2013 05:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:53 am, parminder at itforchange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes it is the same, with those suggestions incorporated, and reviewed.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the information, Jeremy...
>>>
>>> Who reviewed and incorporated the suggestions, and 'finalised' the 
>>> statement.
>>
>> The steering committee (except Marianne who presented apologies) at a 
>> meeting the previous night.
>
> In fact, the lack of clarity of the process is so high that I no 
> longer know who are members of steering committee... Dont  those who 
> consider themselves members of the BB group kind of need to know such 
> basic stuff...
>
> One process issue that was raised repeatedly at the BB f2f meeting was 
> about clarity about steering committee members and where they 'came 
> from'..... there was a demand that their association with groups/ 
> organisation etc be very clear, along with nature of funding support 
> etc, and I would add - if not explicit on the respective websites - a 
> basic statement of organisational objectives, vision/ mission etc, and 
> list of activities and the such...
>
> parminder
>
>
>>
>>> My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... 
>>
>> That, though, was just an oversight - I really apologise for that. I 
>> actually thought that we had incorporated the only two outstanding 
>> points and evidently overlooked this one, or thought it had already 
>> been incorporated.
>>
>> Somewhat explaining this lapse, we were very pressed for time as we 
>> wanted it to go public on the last day of the IGF, and by that time 
>> the BB server was already down, though I didn't yet realise how 
>> badly. I spent a few hours that night trying to bring it back up.
>>
>>> It was
>>> regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second 
>>> sentence -
>>> which seek multistakeholder model of holding the conference. I had
>>> proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil society to be an 
>>> equal
>>> partner in all processes of holding the conference..... 
>>
>> However I do think this is covered pretty well anyway, if you take 
>> the statement as a whole.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk 
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>

-- 
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/51c72f14/attachment.htm>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 17:30:11 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:30:11 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeting - CS representation
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK34W2_bvdPDe=S2dgDti-xKW4-LHQpUsYxXfcn6GCA0Fg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528EDFE1.9030909@itforchange.net> <CADFgh11mgTS7R+-7s1zd6UHRAOCAwa_22k0CxwD_oyBoeLmmwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACpVkK34W2_bvdPDe=S2dgDti-xKW4-LHQpUsYxXfcn6GCA0Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhB8EBBJpe2C_7EU8TR=JktOPBb7q8uHcgiX=VOh6FrkA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> So far there is no 1net structure that we could engage in. People who
> subscribe to the 1net list get no response.


I get plenty of responses from 1net.  You may not have been subscribed properly.

the archive is here:

https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/

to subscribe, go here:

https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination


Regards,

McTim

From nashton at consensus.pro  Fri Nov 22 19:48:59 2013
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:33:59 +0545
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeting - CS representation
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxhB8EBBJpe2C_7EU8TR=JktOPBb7q8uHcgiX=VOh6FrkA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528EDFE1.9030909@itforchange.net> <CADFgh11mgTS7R+-7s1zd6UHRAOCAwa_22k0CxwD_oyBoeLmmwg@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK34W2_bvdPDe=S2dgDti-xKW4-LHQpUsYxXfcn6GCA0Fg@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhB8EBBJpe2C_7EU8TR=JktOPBb7q8uHcgiX=VOh6FrkA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F8CC1FF6-C474-49C5-B864-E3BA595724CD@consensus.pro>

1net is the most active list I am on. If you aren’t getting replies, check your subscription options.

On 23 Nov 2013, at 04:15, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>> 
>> So far there is no 1net structure that we could engage in. People who
>> subscribe to the 1net list get no response.
> 
> 
> I get plenty of responses from 1net.  You may not have been subscribed properly.
> 
> the archive is here:
> 
> https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
> 
> to subscribe, go here:
> 
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> McTim
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 22 21:39:21 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 08:09:21 +0530
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net>

I will like to participate in all....

Meanwhile, I had requested on the 'summit' sublist of BB that the term 
'orphan issues' is loaded and that the more appropriate term from Tunis 
agenda 'Internet-related public policy issues' be used under 3.2 below. 
I think Jeremy did change it then as per my suggestion.

The term 'orphan issues' was essentially introduced recently by the I* 
star group. To me it gives 'public policy issues' a status of kind of 
subsidiarity or dependency (in any case, certainly a lower status) to 
'IG issues of technical nature' that I* deals with - whereby it becomes 
more 'logical' to extend the ICANN model of governance to substantive 
public policy issues....

parminder

On Saturday 23 November 2013 02:03 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> OUTPUTS
>
>  1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>     participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>  2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco
>     Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>  3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>     multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>      1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>         Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>      2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>         and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131123/94290be0/attachment.htm>

From joao.caribe at icloud.com  Fri Nov 22 06:34:25 2013
From: joao.caribe at icloud.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:34:25 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To:  <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2CCF77D6-A708-4EEE-B8DA-56910A17CD0A@icloud.com>

It's appear to be fine, including the representative team , genre balance, etc


João Carlos R. Caribé
(021)4042 7727
(021)8761 1967
Skype joaocaribe
Enviado via iPhone

> Em 22/11/2013, às 07:22, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> escreveu:
> 
> Dear Parminder and all,
> 
> Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is.
> 
> For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and support it as is. 
> 
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
> 
> 
> 
> LETTER FINAL DRAFT
> To
> Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom
> 
> Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI
> 
> Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency
> 
> Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and
> Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br
> 
> We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014.
> 
> 
> During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting:
> 
> 
> 
> * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz
> 
> 
> * Ms Carolina Rossini
> 
> 
> * Mr Carlos A Afonso
> 
> 
> * Ms Laura Tresca
> 
> This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society groups and individuals. They have our trust and support.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> etc
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/297e6a03/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 07:07:02 2013
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:07:02 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch> <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CA60F9EA-953B-426F-A635-2C28723E07B8@gmail.com>

Hi
On Nov 21, 2013, at 5:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:
> 
> Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil society representatives, we should simply support the continuation of all civil society representatives who have served less than a three-year term.

I’m having a bit of trouble with mail volume due to the BA meeting etc but it does seem that most who’ve spoken to the issue have suggested the opposite.  And indeed, looking at the list of current reps Matt sent, my perception is that in the year and half I’ve been on MAG maybe half those names have been really active contributors to discussions etc; I don’t recall who did or didn't attend the meetings and open consultations, complete the massive workshop review tasks, or participate in online groups planning focus sessions.  But as it’d be inappropriate to name names, the only option would be for the SC to undertake the labor intensive approach of having a peek at the transcripts and open list archives to get a sense of things.  Alternatively,

> But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative support has been received for the self-nominations of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma, Bertrand de la Chapelle to fill them.

if you’d only be suggesting three newbies (all of which I’d support), you could just just stick with that and hope the secretariat (which is undoubtedly aware of participation levels) and DESA see the opportunity.  But since their decisions also reflect other variables like overall regional balance (not just among the CS contingent) that may not work, and ill-advised premature rotations or failures to rotate have happened in the past.

Perhaps at a minimum you could stress the need the need for regular 3 year rotations and cycling out all those have been there forever...

> Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are yet to receive affirmative support.
> 
> So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying the above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see below).
> 
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:42 pm, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:
> 
>> But my questions remain.   Since others knew to respond I assume a CFP with this info was issued, but I missed it and can’t find it in the BB archives (apologies if it turns out this is simply because I’m in a crowded noisy hallway and can’t focus).   So again, could you tell when was the call for nominations, what was the deadline for submission, and what is the process from here?
> 
> The general nomination procedure was raised at the Bali meeting and was in development on the wiki for a while before that, but the proposal to test it out for the MAG was in the thread at http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-11/msg00130.html.  Since then we've clarified that the steering committee isn't selecting anyone, just facilitating the process.

Thanks and sorry, I simply missed the message in which said you wanted names by the 20th.  If people would like, us incumbents could send along the messages we submitted to the IGC nomcom and other networks asking to be renominated, maybe that would help identify who's lights are on and who’s not home...
> 
>> Looking through other messages from today, I agree with Mawaki that when BB (and IGC, and anyone else) sends the secretariat nominations, this should be accompanied by a clear explanation of who’s making the nominations on what basis and the nomination procedure that’s been followed so they have context for what they’re looking at.
> 
> So this may mean that a joint/combined nomination with the IGC is off the table, but we can still do a joint civil society letter explaining the different processes and nominees.  That's seems fine to me - we realised that a combined nomination was ambitious, and the IGC's process is pretty self-contained.

Sounds right.

Parenthetically, I agree with those on the other thread who’ve suggested that BB not descend into circular firing squad mode, not draw odd connections between surveillance states and the steering committee, and simply report on activities and then define a process for renewing the SC in the new year.

Best,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/65006c59/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Sat Nov 23 03:21:47 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 13:51:47 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-LTOmqdGhpKGs1=w7FTy+tBTMtux6b5kY2JBNcQ+sdXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131122130755.C38093287A7@a2knetwork.org>
	<CAJqNAHC5JX22OH0FkV6SFMOi-Df9YRjFwigqn_d__B1wtCpgNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v-LTOmqdGhpKGs1=w7FTy+tBTMtux6b5kY2JBNcQ+sdXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHD0tNN-RhTSA2umGaVwuivdvS7N-fnSC+=wdcnY6S49rw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Mawaki, Daniel, and all,

On 23 November 2013 01:03, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not to speak for Daniel but (since you may be pressed by time) from the
> way I read that part, it is a suggestion that you might want to specify for
> each one of the Liaisons which of the 3 signatory networks they are part
> of.
>

Thanks for the feedback, Mawaki. I think the whole idea is precisely to
present the liaisons as liaisons of all three networks, irrespective of
their exact memberships. This kind of approach allows us to present a
unified front and, I would argue, also to strengthen collaboration and come
to greater unity amongst ourselves in practice in the longer term.

Daniel, I therefore suggest that we simply sign with the names of the three
networks. If you strongly disagree with this approach, please do let us
know within the next two hours or so.

Many thanks,
Anja


>
> I'm just serving as an interpret here, and have no position on that.
> .... You're welcome Anja. Thank you for your stewardship.
> Best,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:
>
>> Dear Daniel,
>>
>> I think Marianne has already answered most of your questions, but I
>> wanted to get a clarification on this one:
>>
>> On 22 November 2013 18:37, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  Also, dont you think the belonging to the respective(s) 3 network(s) of
>>> the list of representative names should be explicitely mentionned?
>>>
>>
>> Could you please explain in more detail what you mean exactly?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and
>>> is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>


-- 
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/20131123/d8b737cd/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Sat Nov 23 07:03:37 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:03:37 -0300
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com> <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch>

Hi

Parminder, FWIW the term orphaned issues has been around since before we met in Tunis, e.g. I used it in a presentation to the UNICT TF forum at UN NYC in March 2004 in arguing for creation of a new mechanism and in many places since, including the consultations on creating IGF in 2004, the WGIG book in 2005, in four workshops etc. pushing for IG4D to be on the IGF agenda subsequently (see the Sharm book)...  In fact, it’s also in the IGC's July 2005 response to the WGIG report—i.e. the IGF mandate should include "identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture, i.e. ‘orphaned' or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within  the ambit of any existing body.”

It’s fine if you don’t want to use the term now, but it most certainly was not intended to give issues that are subject to no global governance mechanisms a subsidiary or weaker status—precisely the opposite.  And in any event, this is one thing you can’t blame on the technical community :-)

Cheers

Bill

On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:39 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> I will like to participate in all.... 
> 
> Meanwhile, I had requested on the 'summit' sublist of BB that the term 'orphan issues' is loaded and that the more appropriate term from Tunis agenda 'Internet-related public policy issues' be used under 3.2 below. I think Jeremy did change it then as per my suggestion.
> 
> The term 'orphan issues' was essentially introduced recently by the I* star group. To me it gives 'public policy issues' a status of kind of subsidiarity or dependency (in any case, certainly a lower status) to 'IG issues of technical nature' that I* deals with - whereby it becomes more 'logical' to extend the ICANN model of governance to substantive public policy issues.... 
> 
> parminder
> 
> On Saturday 23 November 2013 02:03 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> OUTPUTS
>> 
>> Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>> Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>> Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>> Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>> Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131123/e3d6b6b6/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov 23 07:57:38 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:27:38 +0530
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com> <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net> <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 23 November 2013 05:33 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Parminder, FWIW the term orphaned issues has been around since before 
> we met in Tunis, e.g

Hi Bill, thanks for this information. I correct myself.

> I used it in a presentation to the UNICT TF forum at UN NYC in March 
> 2004 in arguing for creation of a new mechanism and in many places 
> since, including the consultations on creating IGF in 2004, the WGIG 
> book in 2005, in four workshops etc. pushing for IG4D to be on the IGF 
> agenda subsequently (see the Sharm book)...  In fact, it’s also in the 
> IGC's July 2005 response to the WGIG report—i.e. the IGF mandate 
> should include "identification of weaknesses and gaps in 
> the governance architecture, i.e. ‘orphaned' or multidimensional 
> issues that do not fall neatly within  the ambit of any existing body.”

To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues 
that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for 
doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms. (and of 
course, post WSIS the list of much issues has only grown tremendously.)

Marilia on the behalf of CTS, Brazil, and our organisation held a 
workshop in Nairobi on this issue. Markus speaking for ISOC was 
specifically asked about these non ICANN and non tech issues and he said 
that (more or less) all of these are being dealt by one global agency or 
the other.... In that sense I think that the tech community was in 
denial with regard to these issues, which they have shed now.

However, I still hear a lot of people in civil society being doubtful 
(or simply denying) that there are such public policy issues that need a 
new mechanism... Even after 10 years of WSIS, they say lets first map 
and find out if there are indeed such issues (when even WGIG listed 
enough of them).... and therefore this denial in terms of 
Internet-related public policy issues (that are either not at all, or 
not adequately, dealt by existing mechanisms) continues to be widespread.

>
> It’s fine if you don’t want to use the term now, but it most certainly 
> was not intended to give issues that are subject to no global 
> governance mechanisms a subsidiary or weaker status—precisely the 
> opposite.  And in any event, this is one thing you can’t blame on the 
> technical community :-)

About the forthcoming Brazil meeting, I remain most concerned by the 
repeated statements emanating from ICANN/ I* quarters to the effect that 
they face “growing pressures to address issues outside its sphere of 
responsibility" . This appears very strange to me.... Who is applying 
such pressure? Can they recognise those parties for us. Because I know 
none. This to me looks like a self-asserted demand coming for the global 
IG system status quoists.

And of course the idea is to somehow extend the ICANN model of 
governance to these "issues outside its sphere of responsibility" , 
which are the numerous Internet-related public policy issues. It is in 
this sense, that I said that in tech community's mind these issues seem 
to be of a lower/ subsidiary status, whereby probably ICANN model can be 
extended to them. But I understand what you mean above -- they have 
indeed always been very concerned that the manner of dealing with these 
'Internet-related public policy' issues would somehow interfere with the 
freedom of their own work. This is a legitimate fear.

best, parminder

>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:39 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> I will like to participate in all....
>>
>> Meanwhile, I had requested on the 'summit' sublist of BB that the 
>> term 'orphan issues' is loaded and that the more appropriate term 
>> from Tunis agenda 'Internet-related public policy issues' be used 
>> under 3.2 below. I think Jeremy did change it then as per my suggestion.
>>
>> The term 'orphan issues' was essentially introduced recently by the 
>> I* star group. To me it gives 'public policy issues' a status of kind 
>> of subsidiarity or dependency (in any case, certainly a lower status) 
>> to 'IG issues of technical nature' that I* deals with - whereby it 
>> becomes more 'logical' to extend the ICANN model of governance to 
>> substantive public policy issues....
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Saturday 23 November 2013 02:03 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>
>>> OUTPUTS
>>>
>>>  1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>>     participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>>  2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on
>>>     Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>  3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>>     multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>>      1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done
>>>         by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>>      2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the
>>>         WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131123/3f3f5420/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sat Nov 23 09:40:31 2013
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:40:31 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeting - CS representation
In-Reply-To: <F8CC1FF6-C474-49C5-B864-E3BA595724CD@consensus.pro>
References: <528EDFE1.9030909@itforchange.net> <CADFgh11mgTS7R+-7s1zd6UHRAOCAwa_22k0CxwD_oyBoeLmmwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACpVkK34W2_bvdPDe=S2dgDti-xKW4-LHQpUsYxXfcn6GCA0Fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhB8EBBJpe2C_7EU8TR=JktOPBb7q8uHcgiX=VOh6FrkA@mail.gmail.com> <F8CC1FF6-C474-49C5-B864-E3BA595724CD@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1KWaNQ0RL8-JGLLEn78oiBjGZtQxwxk_STDjJQNVBREA@mail.gmail.com>

Strange because it was not only me. Several people from different groups
complained during ICANN about singing up to this list and receiving
nothing. And I did write to the manager to ask if there was something
wrong. Anyway, I am sure that conversations have been lively among those
who are in. If you can continue to share information about discussions
while this problem is not solved, that would be appreciated.
Marília


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>wrote:

> 1net is the most active list I am on. If you aren’t getting replies, check
> your subscription options.
>
> On 23 Nov 2013, at 04:15, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Parminder,
> >>
> >> So far there is no 1net structure that we could engage in. People who
> >> subscribe to the 1net list get no response.
> >
> >
> > I get plenty of responses from 1net.  You may not have been subscribed
> properly.
> >
> > the archive is here:
> >
> > https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/
> >
> > to subscribe, go here:
> >
> > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > McTim
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>


-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131123/e18d1f77/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Nov 23 10:30:24 2013
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 10:30:24 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeting - CS representation
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1KWaNQ0RL8-JGLLEn78oiBjGZtQxwxk_STDjJQNVBREA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528EDFE1.9030909@itforchange.net> <CADFgh11mgTS7R+-7s1zd6UHRAOCAwa_22k0CxwD_oyBoeLmmwg@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK34W2_bvdPDe=S2dgDti-xKW4-LHQpUsYxXfcn6GCA0Fg@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhB8EBBJpe2C_7EU8TR=JktOPBb7q8uHcgiX=VOh6FrkA@mail.gmail.com> <F8CC1FF6-C474-49C5-B864-E3BA595724CD@consensus.pro> <CACpVkK1KWaNQ0RL8-JGLLEn78oiBjGZtQxwxk_STDjJQNVBREA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5290CA10.1000901@cis-india.org>

Marilia Maciel [2013-11-23 09:40]:
> Strange because it was not only me. Several people from different groups
> complained during ICANN about singing up to this list and receiving
> nothing. 

It wasn't just you.  The folks behind the 1net site (AfriNIC with
ICANN?) make a mistake.

There was supposed to be a "discuss" ML on 1net.org. Many people signed
up for that since it was on the main page on the earlier version of
1net.org, but that doesn't exist (if it ever did).

Now, after the redesign, 1net.org is directing people to the
i-coordination ML on nro.net.

The good thing is that the archives are available here:
https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/

~ 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
--------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow
Information Society Project, Yale Law School
T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131123/25813cb4/attachment.sig>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Sun Nov  3 07:50:18 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:50:18 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Steering Group - who are we?
In-Reply-To: <527645E2.1000308@gold.ac.uk>
References: <788D29EF-3039-4905-B0DD-15D0F40EBA3A@ciroap.org> <20131025035459.4f131496@swan.bollow.ch> <CADFgh10bGrzY2wfhkcqYC=-_L548_sgSCEv_o3Q9xC7B3iC=xw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHD_qfrhpuAGQqeW50nLdBHtffQbyQW75YCzTZGqbWHyFw@mail.gmail.com> <5269F415.7080302@itforchange.net> <EDE8D93C-5740-4DBE-B50A-7CEDE82AF069@ciroap.org> <4995fa1a166549928c07b7558a06bd56.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <9E000712-0B79-408E-8E01-B1ACB1BE89F4@ciroap.org> <5275EEEF.8030806@itforchange.net> <527645E2.1000308@gold.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <5276468A.8010504@gold.ac.uk>

PS

Correction: I am NOT claiming to be speaking for others!

(this omission was not a Freudian slip...!)

best
MF

On 03/11/2013 12:47, Marianne Franklin wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I have taken the liberty of revising the original thread title to 
> address Parminder's request for more clarity about the BB steering 
> group, at least from my perspective.
>
> It is an interim steering group in that a number of us (self)nominated 
> or were nominated to join. I have been on there in an individual 
> capacity but also on behalf of the IRP Coalition, both capacities 
> still on an interim basis as setting up Best Bits was done quite 
> quickly and to date indeed many decisions and actions have taken place 
> at a fast tempo.
>
> So, as is the case with all the various networks we are all 
> participating in I look forward to this interim group becoming an 
> endorsed or elected one for all the reasons that Parminder and others 
> have noted.
>
> To the Statement that Best Bets has authored; this statement, drafted 
> at the Best Bits pre-IGF meeting in Bali, was indeed released without 
> all of the Steering Group being present. As it is now a baseline 
> document for ongoing discussions it now being public can hopefully 
> focus those discussions as the ICANN-Brazil Summit meeting remains as 
> yet unclear in terms of participation and intent. To this end, the 
> report that Joana Varon and others compiled of the Bali meetings is 
> very helpful for us all to consider.
>
> To me, thinking back over several months of intense email traffic and 
> output emerging from the Best Bits initiative, perhaps the adage "more 
> haste, less speed" might be one we could apply within the interim 
> steering group and as a wider network that dovetails with many others. 
> Ignoring or overlooking these many others is not the best way forward 
> in the long run, and it is the long run that matters I think even if 
> things appear to be happening at breakneck speed. Appearances can be 
> deceiving!
>
> Hope this clarifies things from one Best Bits Steering group member 
> perspective; I am claiming here to speak for all others. In terms of 
> my current responsibility towards informing the IRP Coalition of key 
> Best Bits outputs, the current steering group is working on these 
> procedures as indeed we must.
>
> best
> MF
>
>
>
> On 03/11/2013 06:36, parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday 26 October 2013 05:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:53 am, parminder at itforchange.net 
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes it is the same, with those suggestions incorporated, and reviewed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the information, Jeremy...
>>>>
>>>> Who reviewed and incorporated the suggestions, and 'finalised' the 
>>>> statement.
>>>
>>> The steering committee (except Marianne who presented apologies) at 
>>> a meeting the previous night.
>>
>> In fact, the lack of clarity of the process is so high that I no 
>> longer know who are members of steering committee... Dont  those who 
>> consider themselves members of the BB group kind of need to know such 
>> basic stuff...
>>
>> One process issue that was raised repeatedly at the BB f2f meeting 
>> was about clarity about steering committee members and where they 
>> 'came from'..... there was a demand that their association with 
>> groups/ organisation etc be very clear, along with nature of funding 
>> support etc, and I would add - if not explicit on the respective 
>> websites - a basic statement of organisational objectives, vision/ 
>> mission etc, and list of activities and the such...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... 
>>>
>>> That, though, was just an oversight - I really apologise for that. I 
>>> actually thought that we had incorporated the only two outstanding 
>>> points and evidently overlooked this one, or thought it had already 
>>> been incorporated.
>>>
>>> Somewhat explaining this lapse, we were very pressed for time as we 
>>> wanted it to go public on the last day of the IGF, and by that time 
>>> the BB server was already down, though I didn't yet realise how 
>>> badly. I spent a few hours that night trying to bring it back up.
>>>
>>>> It was
>>>> regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second 
>>>> sentence -
>>>> which seek multistakeholder model of holding the conference. I had
>>>> proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil society to be 
>>>> an equal
>>>> partner in all processes of holding the conference..... 
>>>
>>> However I do think this is covered pretty well anyway, if you take 
>>> the statement as a whole.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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 <http://e164.org>|awk 
>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>
>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> Dept. of Media & Communications
> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> @GloComm
> https://twitter.com/GloComm
> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> @netrights

-- 
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/6ae1680c/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Nov 23 11:12:41 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:12:41 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] IGlasnost: Internet Collaborative Stewardship Framework
Message-ID: <mailman.82.1642081818.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131123/c4f4549d/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Nov 23 11:34:30 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:34:30 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition
 to  address new Internet governance challenges
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0gVj=V-jf117UjtkJ_MOTAX69SXUgE7sQ_v5tMvOeYxA@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com>
 <B28D37B7-E3C7-4C01-935C-E15A44A4E9EA@hserus.net>
 <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com>
 <0E149A89-BCB0-4F69-A0F5-F4571521B1BB@uzh.ch>
 <122601cee6ec$2fee2690$8fca73b0$@gmail.com>
 <558DFC58-A068-4BC4-88B6-D3DA58B30FD8@uzh.ch>
 <CACpVkK0gVj=V-jf117UjtkJ_MOTAX69SXUgE7sQ_v5tMvOeYxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.83.1642081818.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131123/0ce017cc/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Sat Nov 23 15:24:40 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 01:54:40 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS
 representation
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHD0tNN-RhTSA2umGaVwuivdvS7N-fnSC+=wdcnY6S49rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHC_M8WE4M19BqVC2pgWmY=75xXP=kMwc4cF4FHWqAMUPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131122130755.C38093287A7@a2knetwork.org>
	<CAJqNAHC5JX22OH0FkV6SFMOi-Df9YRjFwigqn_d__B1wtCpgNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v-LTOmqdGhpKGs1=w7FTy+tBTMtux6b5kY2JBNcQ+sdXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHD0tNN-RhTSA2umGaVwuivdvS7N-fnSC+=wdcnY6S49rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHApAW_poMF=VBnEnBqcUwDywJi5Bv7d7C0JQjET9OYfrQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Since there have been no further comments, I presume we can say that the
letter has been accepted as is and Best Bits can formally be added to the
signatories.

Mawaki, I did propose your changes to the larger group involved in the
drafting, but possibly since the initial drafting was such a long-drawn out
process, people prefered that we leave it as is. Thanks for your feedback
though.

And many thanks to all who responded to this thread for your vocal support.

Best regards,
Anja


On 23 November 2013 13:51, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> Dear Mawaki, Daniel, and all,
>
> On 23 November 2013 01:03, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not to speak for Daniel but (since you may be pressed by time) from the
>> way I read that part, it is a suggestion that you might want to specify for
>> each one of the Liaisons which of the 3 signatory networks they are part
>> of.
>>
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Mawaki. I think the whole idea is precisely to
> present the liaisons as liaisons of all three networks, irrespective of
> their exact memberships. This kind of approach allows us to present a
> unified front and, I would argue, also to strengthen collaboration and come
> to greater unity amongst ourselves in practice in the longer term.
>
> Daniel, I therefore suggest that we simply sign with the names of the
> three networks. If you strongly disagree with this approach, please do let
> us know within the next two hours or so.
>
> Many thanks,
> Anja
>
>
>>
>> I'm just serving as an interpret here, and have no position on that.
>> .... You're welcome Anja. Thank you for your stewardship.
>> Best,
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Daniel,
>>>
>>> I think Marianne has already answered most of your questions, but I
>>> wanted to get a clarification on this one:
>>>
>>> On 22 November 2013 18:37, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Also, dont you think the belonging to the respective(s) 3 network(s)
>>>> of the list of representative names should be explicitely mentionned?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could you please explain in more detail what you mean exactly?
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and
>>>> is
>>>> believed to be clean.
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
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/20131124/21709855/attachment.htm>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat Nov 23 19:59:17 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 01:59:17 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
References:  <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
 <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk>
 <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org>
 <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid>
 <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net>
 <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch>
 <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Parminder:
To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for  doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms. 

Wolfgang:
Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger? You were a proponent of better outpput in the UNCSTD IGF Improgeent WG! What is your comment to Jeremy´s and my proposal for an (IGF) Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council (MIPOC) as an addition to the MAG (which is just a program committteee)?

w

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov 24 07:42:56 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:12:56 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>,<528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too!
>
> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision.

This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.

However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the 
outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke 
about their procedural  aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder 
versus multilateral, etc . That these processes

1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and
2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of 
the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal.

And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this 
particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are 
fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even 
started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow 
WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I 
have ever seen.

Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of 
global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most 
discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply 
dismiss this concern.

Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet 
policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to 
be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write 
to them, that

1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other 
regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications 
across the globe, to ensure global democracy.
2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on 
other countries  - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet 
policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself 
take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding 
it .
3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of 
multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy 
related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of 
different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ 
CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the 
global level, with justification thereof.
4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD 
countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. 
(Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG)

and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open 
to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that 
transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that 
of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......)

I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making 
role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an 
authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately 
write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be 
assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet 
Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level 
submitted to WGEC).


Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take 
up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD?

parminder

PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, 
which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come 
off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this 
list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) 
to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' 
discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important 
to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in 
politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it 
is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of 
their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know 
the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting 
civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and 
tolerate internal 'dissent'.

> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues  discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles.
>
> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels.
>
> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we never reach it because people come back continuously to the few areas where there are disagreement (or where people's opinions aren't fully formed and they aren't willing to concede until they are) and scratch at them on and on that prevents us from working on the areas where there is agreement. If we spent more time working on the areas where there is agreement, I honestly think that by the time we came to the more contentious areas we'd find them much narrower and easier to deal with, then we do by starting at those points. These conversations always seem to be framed as "we need to agree on the most contentious issues BEFORE we discuss anything else".
>
> For example, coming up with a proposal to put forward for the Brazil meeting - I think if we started trying to craft the language, the concerns with the current situation, the things we want to see, I think there would be huge amounts of agreement - strengthening IGF, internationalising ICANN, the values that should be ingrained in any governance mechanism. Then if at the end of that we came to some sort of roadblock  (in very crude terms multi-stakeholder vs multi-lateral but I think those generic terms might sound far more apart than they are actually are among many civil society people), we could at that point decide to either submit different proposals, or come up with some slightly diplomatic fudge that most of us could sign on too, and as a result would have a lot of power. That's what happened with the WCIT statement.
>
> Anyways, I'm really frustrated to see the BB list go the same way as the IGC list just one month after we all agreed we didn't want that to happen. And I don't think anyone has caused it by the principles behind what they are saying, but rather by the way in which they say those things. Just to say, I thought the exact same about the debate about civil society funding. It's a completely valid point and I know that we at GPD are working on producing public reports of our funding streams. But it should not be started with: whoever gets funding from x funder is therefore invalid and should not be included in the debate. Again the conversation should start where there is agreement: i.e. "I think transparency and accountability among civil society is important, and one thing we should look at ways of being more transparent about is funding".
>
> Best,
> Dixie
> ________________________________________
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: 21 November 2013 14:04
> To: Andrew Puddephatt
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
>
> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme.
> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done.
>
> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and  you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument...
>
> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points....
>
> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.
>
> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels.
>
> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that it is not right to not treat all countries at the same level.....  It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South....
>
>
> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council
> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body....
>
> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights.
>
> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies....
> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are.  I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.
> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months.  My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely  comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.
>
> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies.
>
> But I’m looking forward to others’ views.
> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not.
>
> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder
>
> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.  We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.
>
>
> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Executive Director
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>
> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
> To: Andrew Puddephatt
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
>
> Andrew
>
> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.
>
> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue.
>
> my responses below...
> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
>
> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it....
>
>
> that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts.
>
>
> You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being  dismissed  in such a summary and disdainful manner.
>
>
>
> Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by.  People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding.
>
> With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe.  It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms.  It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership).  In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful.  Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be.
>
> The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet
>
> What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...)
>
>
> is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued.  Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line.  In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that.
>
> Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space,
>
>
> My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights.
>
> I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues...
>
>
> Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process.   I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that.  It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions.
>
> IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach....
>
> Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work.....
>
>
>
> I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.)  I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do
>
> No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify...  If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one...
>
>
>
> though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want.
>
> Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward.
>
>
>    I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something  different to you.
>
> As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all  pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters...
>
>
> In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more.
>
> How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you.
>
> parminder
>
> So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send
>
> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Executive Director
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
>
>
> On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Anja
>
> Thank you for this.
>
> I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal.
>
> Could it be differences between ministries?
>
> No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest...
>
> While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe.....
>
> Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.)
>
> Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about....
>
> Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish!
>
> So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power?
>
> I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones?  Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers?
>
> Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG...
>
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.
>
> Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop.
>
> But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG.
>
> That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ )
>
> Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.
>
> Comments most welcome.
> Best,
> Anja
> Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet?
> by Anja Kovacs
>
> Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case.
>
> In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following:
>
> The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.
>
> Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived.
>
> Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal.
>
> Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward.
>
> Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job.
>
> However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics.
>
> The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.
>
> The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda.
>
> India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year.
>
> For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model.
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>
> executive director, association for progressive communications
>
> www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org>
>
> po box 29755, melville 2109
>
> south africa
>
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131124/b2e5bbe4/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Nov 24 08:12:15 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:12:15 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332259@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332259@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <394B8D43-E890-49C6-BE68-31ABC15C2655@ciroap.org>

On 24 Nov 2013, at 9:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Dixie: 
> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision.
> 
> Parminer:
> This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.
> 
> Wolfgang:
> Parminder, why you are distributing lies just to support your argument? CISAC did not support the OECD principles for two reasons: IPR and intermediatieries. 

This is a common point of confusion.  CSISAC did not support the Communiqué on Internet Policy-Making Principles, but it did support the subsequent Council Recommendation on Internet Policy-Making Principles, from which the objectionable IP language was removed.  So you are both right.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131124/a2c93157/attachment.sig>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun Nov 24 08:27:28 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:27:28 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>,<528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp>


On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote:

> 
> On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
>> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too!
>> 
>> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. 
>> 
> 
> This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. 
> 


No Parminder, you're wrong.  Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 <http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf>)  Read the document.

No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is.

Adam



> However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural  aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes 
> 
> 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and
> 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. 
> 
> And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. 
> 
> Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern.
> 
> Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that
> 
> 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy.
> 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries  - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . 
> 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof. 
> 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG)
> 
> and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......)
> 
> I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC). 
> 
> 
> Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD? 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'. 
> 
>> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues  discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles.
>> 
>> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels.
>> 
>> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we never reach it because people come back continuously to the few areas where there are disagreement (or where people's opinions aren't fully formed and they aren't willing to concede until they are) and scratch at them on and on that prevents us from working on the areas where there is agreement. If we spent more time working on the areas where there is agreement, I honestly think that by the time we came to the more contentious areas we'd find them much narrower and easier to deal with, then we do by starting at those points. These conversations always seem to be framed as "we need to agree on the most contentious issues BEFORE we discuss anything else".
>> 
>> For example, coming up with a proposal to put forward for the Brazil meeting - I think if we started trying to craft the language, the concerns with the current situation, the things we want to see, I think there would be huge amounts of agreement - strengthening IGF, internationalising ICANN, the values that should be ingrained in any governance mechanism. Then if at the end of that we came to some sort of roadblock  (in very crude terms multi-stakeholder vs multi-lateral but I think those generic terms might sound far more apart than they are actually are among many civil society people), we could at that point decide to either submit different proposals, or come up with some slightly diplomatic fudge that most of us could sign on too, and as a result would have a lot of power. That's what happened with the WCIT statement.
>> 
>> Anyways, I'm really frustrated to see the BB list go the same way as the IGC list just one month after we all agreed we didn't want that to happen. And I don't think anyone has caused it by the principles behind what they are saying, but rather by the way in which they say those things. Just to say, I thought the exact same about the debate about civil society funding. It's a completely valid point and I know that we at GPD are working on producing public reports of our funding streams. But it should not be started with: whoever gets funding from x funder is therefore invalid and should not be included in the debate. Again the conversation should start where there is agreement: i.e. "I think transparency and accountability among civil society is important, and one thing we should look at ways of being more transparent about is funding".
>> 
>> Best,
>> Dixie
>> ________________________________________
>> From: 
>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net
>> ]
>> Sent: 21 November 2013 14:04
>> To: Andrew Puddephatt
>> Cc: 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>> ,
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
>> 
>> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme.
>> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done.
>> 
>> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and  you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument...
>> 
>> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points....
>> 
>> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.
>> 
>> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels.
>> 
>> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that
>>   it is no
>> t right to not treat all countries at the same level.....  It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South....
>> 
>> 
>> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council
>> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body....
>> 
>> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights.
>> 
>> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies....
>> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are.  I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.
>> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months.  My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely  comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.
>> 
>> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies.
>> 
>> But I’m looking forward to others’ views.
>> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not.
>> 
>> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder
>> 
>> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.  We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.
>> 
>> 
>> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>> Executive Director
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> gp-digital.org
>> 
>> From: parminder [
>> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>> ]
>> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
>> To: Andrew Puddephatt
>> Cc: 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
>> ,
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.
>> 
>> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue.
>> 
>> my responses below...
>> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> 
>> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
>> 
>> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it....
>> 
>> 
>> that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts.
>> 
>> 
>> You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being  dismissed  in such a summary and disdainful manner.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by.  People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding.
>> 
>> With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe.  It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms.  It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership).  In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful.  Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be.
>> 
>> The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet
>> 
>> What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...)
>> 
>> 
>> is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued.  Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line.  In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that.
>> 
>> Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space,
>> 
>> 
>> My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights.
>> 
>> I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues...
>> 
>> 
>> Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process.   I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that.  It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions.
>> 
>> IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach....
>> 
>> Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work.....
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.)  I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do
>> 
>> No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify...  If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want.
>> 
>> Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward.
>> 
>> 
>>   I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something  different to you.
>> 
>> As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all  pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters...
>> 
>> 
>> In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more.
>> 
>> How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send
>> 
>> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>> Executive Director
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> gp-digital.org
>> 
>> From: 
>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> ] On Behalf Of parminder
>> Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13
>> To: 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
>> ,
>> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear Anja
>> 
>> Thank you for this.
>> 
>> I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal.
>> 
>> Could it be differences between ministries?
>> 
>> No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest...
>> 
>> While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe.....
>> 
>> Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.)
>> 
>> Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about....
>> 
>> Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish!
>> 
>> So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power?
>> 
>> I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones?  Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers?
>> 
>> Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG...
>> 
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications.
>> 
>> Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop.
>> 
>> But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG.
>> 
>> That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions.
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> 
>> On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: 
>> http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/
>>  )
>> 
>> Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP.
>> 
>> Comments most welcome.
>> Best,
>> Anja
>> Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet?
>> by Anja Kovacs
>> 
>> Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case.
>> 
>> In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)
>> <http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>
>> , which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following:
>> 
>> The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.
>> 
>> Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived.
>> 
>> Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal.
>> 
>> Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward.
>> 
>> Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job.
>> 
>> However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics.
>> 
>> The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.
>> 
>> The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda.
>> 
>> India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year.
>> 
>> For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>> 
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> 
>> www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> anriette esterhuysen 
>> anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>> 
>> 
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> 
>> 
>> www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org>
>> 
>> 
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> 
>> south africa
>> 
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Sun Nov 24 08:51:24 2013
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:51:24 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<528A37DC.1030908@apc.org>
	<528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528DF07A.204@itforchange.net>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net>
	<8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+bzzV_z-Q3VWN8n3MWJOzHCoMJgeqM_2YiXDt5thsbmSQ@mail.gmail.com>

As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did
support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand
corrected by those who know more.

http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php


CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making

In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC
welcomes<http://csisac.org/CSISAC-PR-191211/CSISAC-PR-191211.pdf>
 the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy
Making<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/58/49258588.pdf> adoped
by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to
a free, open and inclusive Internet.

Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative
decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and
concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to
support<http://csisac.org/CSISAC_PR_06292011.pdf> a
previous Communique <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/21/48289796.pdf> resulting
from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011.

CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the
Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in
a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights
and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of
life for all citizens.

On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote:

>
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
> >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add
> my 2 cents too!
> >>
> >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the
> basis of the intellectual property rights provision.
> >>
> >
> > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.
> >
>
>
> No Parminder, you're wrong.  Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society
> Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles
> on Internet policy making (June 2011 <
> http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf>)  Read the document.
>
> No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the
> outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke
> about their procedural  aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder
> versus multilateral, etc . That these processes
> >
> > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and
> > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of
> the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal.
> >
> > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this
> particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are
> fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started
> to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model
> which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen.
> >
> > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of
> global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most
> discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss
> this concern.
> >
> > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet
> policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be
> this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to
> them, that
> >
> > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other
> regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications
> across the globe, to ensure global democracy.
> > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on
> other countries  - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet
> policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself
> take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it .
> > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of
> multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy
> related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of
> different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP,
> and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global
> level, with justification thereof.
> > 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD
> countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or
> they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG)
> >
> > and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open
> to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts
> of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are
> being made public and so on.......)
> >
> > I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making
> role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an
> authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write
> that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into
> the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee
> (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC).
> >
> >
> > Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take
> up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD?
> >
> > parminder
> >
> > PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below,
> which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off
> as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list
> (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to
> continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse
> on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the
> people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what
> you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated
> to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on
> these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil
> discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to
> ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'.
> >
> >> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at
> the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that
> year, one of the main agenda issues  discussed was concerns with the OECP
> Internet Policy-Making Principles.
> >>
> >> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among
> civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was
> wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully
> adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this
> strongly on many panels.
> >>
> >> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many
> issues, but we >> ,
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of
> India to the WGEC
> >>
> >> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on
> this particular theme.
> >> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life
> to support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a
> constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral
> down as other networks have done.
> >>
> >> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta
> constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and  you still
> are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to
> sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old
> views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument...
> >>
> >> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to
> substantive points....
> >>
> >> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but
> that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as
> appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I
> apologise for misunderstanding you.
> >>
> >> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and
> norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime
> convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you
> criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these
> things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels.
> >>
> >> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy
> activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies....
> When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number
> of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one
> against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One
> doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough
> that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes
> (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively
> being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement
> against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series
> are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt
> developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process
> recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your
> organisation participated in the process. But did we say that
> >>   it is no
> >> t right to not treat all countries at the same level.....  It is these
> questions that would keep coming from the global South....
> >>
> >>
> >> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human
> Rights Council
> >> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I
> asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant
> see HRC being such a body....
> >>
> >> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the
> current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that
> leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast
> detriment of human rights.
> >>
> >> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global
> internet related policies....
> >> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are
> satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are.  I
> think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the
> legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that
> arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.
> >> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others
> in the next few months.  My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in
> which different interests are balanced, but will likely  comprise
> internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments,
> with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.
> >>
> >> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this
> is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE,
> there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate
> treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies.
> >>
> >> But I’m looking forward to others’ views.
> >> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to
> people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do
> not.
> >>
> >> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just
> discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder
> >>
> >> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.  We
> all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking
> about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak
> freely.
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> >> Executive Director
> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
> andrewpuddephatt
> >> gp-digital.org
> >>
> >> From: parminder [
> >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> >> ]
> >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
> >> To: Andrew Puddephatt
> >> Cc:
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
> &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
> >> ,
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of
> India to the WGEC
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not
> quite sure that is a good thing to do.
> >>
> >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings
> of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them
> directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation
>  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people
> need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious
> personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group
> responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let
> pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to
> present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the
> issue.
> >>
> >> my responses below...
> >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >>
> >> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
> >>
> >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are
> engaging in it....
> >>
> >>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:;>
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131124/fefb7e44/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun Nov 24 09:07:59 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:07:59 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India
 to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+bzzV_z-Q3VWN8n3MWJOzHCoMJgeqM_2YiXDt5thsbmSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> <CAOLD2+bzzV_z-Q3VWN8n3MWJOzHCoMJgeqM_2YiXDt5thsbmSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp>

I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't.  Please, just read the documents, it's pretty clear.

Adam



On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:

> As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand corrected by those who know more. 
> 
> http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php
> 
> CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making
> In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet.
> 
> Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011.
> 
> CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens.
> 
> 
> On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote:
> 
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
> >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too!
> >>
> >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision.
> >>
> >
> > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.
> >
> 
> 
> No Parminder, you're wrong.  Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 <http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf>)  Read the document.
> 
> No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural  aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes
> >
> > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and
> > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal.
> >
> > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen.
> >
> > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern.
> >
> > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that
> >
> > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy.
> > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries  - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it .
> > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof.
> > 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG)
> >
> > and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......)
> >
> > I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC).
> >
> >
> > Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD?
> >
> > parminder
> >
> > PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'.
> >
> >> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues  discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles.
> >>
> >> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels.
> >>
> >> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we >> ,
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
> >>
> >> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme.
> >> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done.
> >>
> >> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and  you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument...
> >>
> >> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points....
> >>
> >> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.
> >>
> >> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels.
> >>
> >> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that
> >>   it is no
> >> t right to not treat all countries at the same level.....  It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South....
> >>
> >>
> >> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council
> >> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body....
> >>
> >> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights.
> >>
> >> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies....
> >> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are.  I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.
> >> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months.  My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely  comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.
> >>
> >> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies.
> >>
> >> But I’m looking forward to others’ views.
> >> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not.
> >>
> >> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder
> >>
> >> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.  We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> >> Executive Director
> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> >> gp-digital.org
> >>
> >> From: parminder [
> >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> >> ]
> >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
> >> To: Andrew Puddephatt
> >> Cc:
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
> >> ,
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.
> >>
> >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue.
> >>
> >> my responses below...
> >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >>
> >> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
> >>
> >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it....
> >>
> >>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Sun Nov 24 09:13:18 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:13:18 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+bzzV_z-Q3VWN8n3MWJOzHCoMJgeqM_2YiXDt5thsbmSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> <CAOLD2+bzzV_z-Q3VWN8n3MWJOzHCoMJgeqM_2YiXDt5thsbmSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <589E6755-30C0-4003-8859-0E0DAFB5F773@gmail.com>

This type of conversation has been going on for some time, so I'd like to propose a way to move this forward:

My impression is that is this policy space, as is the case in many others, CSOs enter the debate at one point in time, addressing one particular issue.  Many stay focused on a narrow agenda, some expand to a broader view of the policy environment. Without commenting on what is right or wrong, I suggest that those who take a more holistic approach to the geopolitical dynamic offer generic language which can be applied broadly to policymaking processes from many (or all) realms of multilateral decision making which impact the values and goals we jointly share. Then others can decide whether they want to add this to their agenda/approach to each policy forum.  Maybe a Best Bits committee of those interested in this could be formed to offer up such language?  I know Parminder has already suggested one approach.  Are there others?  Regardless, this strikes me like a logical task for a small group of motivated individuals, and not for the entire list(s).
On Nov 24, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:

> As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand corrected by those who know more. 
> 
> http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php
> 
> CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making
> In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet.
> 
> Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011.
> 
> CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens.
> 
> 
> On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote:
> 
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
> >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too!
> >>
> >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision.
> >>
> >
> > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.
> >
> 
> 
> No Parminder, you're wrong.  Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 <http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf>)  Read the document.
> 
> No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural  aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes
> >
> > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and
> > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal.
> >
> > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen.
> >
> > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern.
> >
> > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that
> >
> > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy.
> > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries  - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it .
> > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof.
> > 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG)
> >
> > and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......)
> >
> > I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC).
> >
> >
> > Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD?
> >
> > parminder
> >
> > PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'.
> >
> >> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues  discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles.
> >>
> >> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels.
> >>
> >> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we >> ,
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
> >>
> >> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme.
> >> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views.  But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done.
> >>
> >> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and  you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument...
> >>
> >> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points....
> >>
> >> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.
> >>
> >> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels.
> >>
> >> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that
> >>   it is no
> >> t right to not treat all countries at the same level.....  It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South....
> >>
> >>
> >> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council
> >> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body....
> >>
> >> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights.
> >>
> >> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies....
> >> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are.  I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.
> >> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months.  My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely  comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.
> >>
> >> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies.
> >>
> >> But I’m looking forward to others’ views.
> >> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not.
> >>
> >> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder
> >>
> >> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.  We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> >> Executive Director
> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> >> gp-digital.org
> >>
> >> From: parminder [
> >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> >> ]
> >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
> >> To: Andrew Puddephatt
> >> Cc:
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
> >> ,
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.
> >>
> >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue.
> >>
> >> my responses below...
> >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >>
> >> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
> >>
> >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it....
> >>
> >>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131124/c5102b9c/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Nov  3 11:45:49 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 17:45:49 +0100
Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with
 fadi et all
In-Reply-To: <5275FA47.5080209@itforchange.net>
References: <CALTAiTojBK1+XPk1feU7NdwjLYrQ5uzZDyZp4f=EwAVesygPZA@mail.gmail.com> <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <CALTAiTrcaXg4g1q159253=ozNxoh6KMwbJOJ_j1DLm4QCzwixg@mail.gmail.com> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <CAK-FJAecka2s+=Ror16xq6PU0-QABZ=ruJPaC66QtH6NwYr=6g@mail.gmail.com> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <DDDA06A2-904C-4452-97A5-98ED60BC9EF8@istaff.org> <CAJqNAHBb8ukTb6MZHt4bpY97PkT63pevJSyVrgPeaa7Kmwrz_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAApcLcKqKZQLENCFKHOTgS9b3XZQ7xqg65bOOyc+h5vAx3zh_A@mail.gmail.com> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557BBBE10@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <5275FA47.5080209@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <65CDE258-5508-42C6-BA08-8D0DB4CA5B9A@ciroap.org>

On 3 Nov 2013, at 8:24 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> On Thursday 31 October 2013 10:14 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> I think the precise position is that Best Bits is a platform that enables action/collaboration.  As a platform it therefore does not sign letters  in its own right – a letter goes from the organisations willing to sign it directly not BB itself.  It’s an important distinction and one we need to be careful about.
> 
> I saw an apparent direct role of Bestbits (BB) steering committee with regard to the most recent statement developed here, which does not fit with the above 'platform' nature of BB.

I have been needing to clarify that, and was going to do that in a separate email, but might as well quickly do so in this thread.  In the flurry of emails that I responded to (from my phone at the airport!) on the way back from Bali, I make a couple of mistakes.  The first was to forget that Andrew also wasn't present at our steering group meeting.  The other was to misrepresent that meeting was responsible for finalising the content of the statement, which as you correctly point out, is outside its role, and isn't really the way it happened.  Rather, as one of my other replies records more accurately, the steering committee meeting just affirmed that we should post the statement by the last day of the IGF.  As to the content of the statement, I had just attempted to integrate all the comments that had been given on it to that point, but doing so as part of the original drafting group rather than as a steering committee member.

Here is a proposed fleshed out version of the existing draft procedure around statements, which is open for comment (the bold parts are either new, or significantly rearranged):

> Anyone may propose to the main mailing list that a statement (eg. joint letter, submission) be posted to the Best Bits website.  Any such proposal should be accompanied by either:
> a proposed text, accompanied by a description of the process by which it was drafted and a proposed process and timetable for finalising and posting it for endorsement; or
> a proposed process and timetable for drafting, finalising and posting the text for endorsement.
> The process and timetable may vary depending on context and urgency, but in general:
> the text should be finalised by a fluid working group that is open to civil society participants from the main Best Bits mailing list (but which might work on a separate mailing list, which could be closed);
> the timescale for drafting the text should normally be at least 48 hours;
> the draft text should normally be posted to the main Best Bits mailing list for comment at least another 48 hours before being posted to the website;
> there should be an adequate balance between inclusiveness of the initial drafting process, and the finality of the text.  (In other words, we would seldom agree to post a text that is final and that only a few groups from one part of the world drafted.)
> Objections to the posting of a text for endorsement may be made at the stage of its initial proposal, or at a later stage when the draft text is posted for comment, and can be made both on strategic and on substantive grounds. Possible grounds for opposition include:
> The statement is not on-topic for Best Bits.
> Any proposed statement should not go against the Best Bits goals but should in fact further those.
> The process and timetable are not realistic, or are not inclusive enough.
> The process and timetable have not been complied with.
> However, consensus is not required in order for a text to be posted.  If significant opposition to the posting of the text has been voiced on the main list and cannot be resolved, the steering committee may make a final decision about whether or not to post the statement, in consultation with at least one proponent of the text and at least one opponent.


As to other matters - transparency and accountability, etc - not that your extensive remarks aren't useful, but I will have to respond to them later as I have just arrived in Paris for an OECD meeting, at which I will be tied up for the next few days.  Anyway I mostly agree, save that we should however avoid becoming too inward-looking at the expense of responding to urgent substantive matters over the next few months until the Brazil summit.  Anyway, this includes developing accountable and transparent representative structures.  So it links in with your concern.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/31ec3dd3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/31ec3dd3/attachment.sig>

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Sun Nov 24 12:55:45 2013
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:55:45 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<528A37DC.1030908@apc.org>
	<528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528DF07A.204@itforchange.net>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557C2F2E9@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net>
	<8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAOLD2+bzzV_z-Q3VWN8n3MWJOzHCoMJgeqM_2YiXDt5thsbmSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+YdknuUTPUQW3+jPz9x5m7qvbK55aZ+Fe9c83PaNt1vPw@mail.gmail.com>

To be clear: my understanding is that the statement that CSOs did endorse a
set of principles produced within the OECD was challenged. It seems to me -
and, unless I misinterpret the relevant messages, confirmed inter alia by
Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a number of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of
OECD principles which was acceptable to them.

Again if I understand correctly, the point was not on the substance of such
principles but on the legitimacy of policy-making done within "restricted"
environments, especially when such principles / policies have ambitions of
broader adoption; as well as, relatedly, on the approach to be taken
towards broader settings.

Please note that I'm not taking a position either on the OECD principles or
on the related debate re: broader settings.

P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of the rather small IG
circle (which are, according to some, stakeholders as well) are so clear on
the details of who signed what, when and for which reason.

On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

> Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC endorsement was IPR
> and intermediarities. The opposition of CISAC to the two principles was ere
> outspoken but ignored by an article in the Washington Post by David
> Weitzer. This was corrected later when CISAC reconfirmed that it had its
> own position and did not change it. In contrary, as the statement -
> re-distributed by Andrea - says clearly, CISAC expected a continuation of
> the debate around the two controvrsial principles with the aim to improve
> the lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society. This OECD debate
> did influence also the final stage of the elaboration of the Council of
> Europe principles - which was negotiated in parallel. In the COE we avoided
> controversial OECD language and got the full endorsement by all parties.
>
> w
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:;> im Auftrag von
> Adam Peake
> Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:;>; Andrea Glorioso
> Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; &lt,
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:;>&gt,
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of
> India to the WGEC
>
> I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't.  Please, just read the
> documents, it's pretty clear.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>
> > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did
> support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand
> corrected by those who know more.
> >
> > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php
> >
> > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy
> Making
> > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC welcomes
> the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the
> OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a
> free, open and inclusive Internet.
> >
> > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative
> decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and
> concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to support a
> previous Communique resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011.
> >
> > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the
> Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in
> a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights
> and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of
> life for all citizens.
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
> > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to
> add my 2 cents too!
> > >>
> > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on
> the basis of the intellectual property rights provision.
> > >>
> > >
> > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.
> > >
> >
> >
> > No Parminder, you're wrong.  Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society
> Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles
> on Internet policy making (June 2011 <
> http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf>)  Read the document.
> >
> > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of
> the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke
> about their procedural  aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder
> versus multilateral, etc . That these processes
> > >
> > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and
> > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some
> of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal.
> > >
> > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this
> particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are
> fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started
> to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model
> which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen.
> > >
> > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem
> of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most
> discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss
> this concern.
> > >
> > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet
> policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be
> this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to
> them, that
> > >
> > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other
> regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications
> across the globe, to ensure global democracy.
> > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks
> on other countries  - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet
> policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself
> take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it .
> > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles
> of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy
> related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of
> different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP,
> and whether they are same or different than what they > >> Development
> House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
> andrewpuddephatt
> > >> gp-digital.org
> > >>
> > >> From: parminder [
> > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> > >> ]
> > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
> > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt
> > >> Cc:
> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
> &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
> > >> ,
> > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government
> of India to the WGEC
> > >>
> > >> Andrew
> > >>
> > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not
> quite sure that is a good thing to do.
> > >>
> > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings
> of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them
> directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation
>  which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people
> need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious
> personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group
> responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let
> pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to
> present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the
> issue.
> > >>
> > >> my responses below...
> > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
> > >>
> > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who
> are engaging in it....
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >
> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >
> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep
> it in mind.
> > Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.go<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>



-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131124/23b9c8d9/attachment.htm>

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Sun Nov 24 13:29:22 2013
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:29:22 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to
 Address Future of Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org>
References: <CF3F34BA-28B4-48E3-BA7C-BC85E783BAF6@istaff.org> <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <80B54730-919D-4D14-8EDE-E059EF2297A1@gmail.com>

Jeremy,

I can understand your feeling, although I don't agree with your point.  I think you're assuming that if you don't have a equilibrated balance of vocal forces that represent UN-defined stakeholder groups in a group (in every group?) that the group lacks legitimacy.  I think that is a view based on antagonistic relationships between groups, and that it does not represent reality.  See my long post to the list of a few hours ago.

I've reviewed the list of panelists, and I see names of people who support a multiplicity of goals, including those expressed by the representatives of civil society in the vocal civil society groups within the multi-stakeholder framework.  Furthermore, this panel is only one of the sources of information and opinions that will go into the Internet governance discussions, both for the Brazil meeting and for the longer term.

I think that it would be more constructive for members of stakeholder groups to stress the end goals that they are for, and work with other representatives to seriously address agreements and differences, rather than to express negativity regarding process.

I agree with the sentiments in your last sentence below.  Let's focus on substantive issues.

George  

 

 
On Nov 17, 2013, at 11:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote:
>> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - 
>> 
>> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance challenges."
>> 
>> <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html>
> 
> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society representatives for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel on Internet evolution.  Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel would be a decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just more bluff.
> 
> The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf do not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution.  And meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as in the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age.  The technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, is eating broader civil society alive.
> 
> We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over questions about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or closed.  It is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process issues on hold, and focus on urgent substantive issues.
> 
> Will post something more practical about all this to the new (though now already mis-named) "summit" list.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131124/67467722/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov 24 22:08:51 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:38:51 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online
 Privacy Rights Everywhere
In-Reply-To: <52925BF7.2070605@bluewin.ch>
References: <52925BF7.2070605@bluewin.ch>
Message-ID: <5292BF43.1040705@itforchange.net>




from foreign policy


  Exclusive: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights
  Everywhere
  <http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/20/exclusive_inside_americas_plan_to_kill_online_privacy_rights_everywhere>


    Posted By Colum Lynch <http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/blog/16159>
    Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 6:10 PM  Share
    <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20>

The United States and its key intelligence allies are quietly working 
behind the scenes to kneecap a mounting movement in the United Nations 
to promote a universal human right to online privacy, according to 
diplomatic sources and an internal American government document obtained 
by /The Cable/.

The diplomatic battle is playing out in an obscure U.N. General Assembly 
committee that is considering a proposal by Brazil and Germany to place 
constraints on unchecked internet surveillance by the National Security 
Agency and other foreign intelligence services. American representatives 
have made it clear that they won't tolerate such checks on their global 
surveillance network. The stakes are high, particularly in Washington -- 
which is seeking to contain an international backlash against NSA spying 
<http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/25/exclusive_21_nations_line_up_behind_un_effort_to_restrain_nsa> -- 
and in Brasilia, where Brazilian President Dilma Roussef is personally 
involved in monitoring the U.N. negotiations.

The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, 
which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, first revealed 
by /The Cable/ 
<http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/24/exclusive_germany_brazil_turn_to_un_to_restrain_american_spies>, 
affirms a "right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or 
unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or 
correspondence." It notes that while public safety may "justify the 
gathering and protection of certain sensitive information," nations 
"must ensure full compliance" with international human rights laws. A 
final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on 
Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week.

A draft of the resolution, which was obtained by /The Cable/, calls on 
states to "to respect and protect the right to privacy," asserting that 
the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, 
including the right to privacy." It also requests the U.N. high 
commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, present the U.N. General 
Assembly next year with a report on the protection and promotion of the 
right to privacy, a provision that will ensure the issue remains on the 
front burner.


        More FP CoverageTHE NSA LEAKS
        <http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/archive/taxonomy/NSA>

  * Meet the Spies Doing the NSA's Dirty Work
    <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/21/the_obscure_fbi_team_that_does_the_nsa_dirty_work>
  * Spy Copters, Lasers, and Break-In Teams
    <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/19/spy_copters_lasers_and_break_in_teams_fbi_spies_on_diplomats>
  * The FBI is Helping the NSA Spy, but Senators Don't Want to Know
    About It
    <http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/14/the_fbi_is_helping_the_nsa_spy_but_senators_don_t_want_to_know_about_it>

Publicly, U.S. representatives say they're open to an affirmation of 
privacy rights. "The United States takes very seriously our 
international legal obligations, including those under the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for 
the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. "We have been 
actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution 
promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations."

But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision 
of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial 
surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal 
information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. 
The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside 
observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage.

In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a 
confidential paper 
<http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/67588682409/right-to-privacy-in-the-digital-age-u-s> highlighting 
American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the 
Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and 
German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring 
explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that 
such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America 
wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas.

The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that 
would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly 
intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of 
freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the 
focus to /illegal/surveillance -- which the American government claims 
it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of 
people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama 
administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, 
overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts.

"Recall that the USG's [U.S. government's] collection activities that 
have been disclosed are lawful collections done in a manner protective 
of privacy rights," the paper states. "So a paragraph expressing concern 
about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree."

The privacy resolution, like most General Assembly decisions, is neither 
legally binding nor enforceable by any international court. But 
international lawyers say it is important because it creates the basis 
for an international consensus -- referred to as "soft law" -- that over 
time will make it harder and harder for the United States to argue that 
its mass collection of foreigners' data is lawful and in conformity with 
human rights norms.

"They want to be able to say ‘we haven't broken the law, we're not 
breaking the law, and we won't break the law,'" said Dinah PoKempner, 
the general counsel for Human Rights Watch, who has been tracking the 
negotiations. The United States, she added, wants to be able to maintain 
that "we have the freedom to scoop up anything we want through the 
massive surveillance of foreigners because we have no legal obligations."

The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the 
scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human 
rights could constrain America's effort to go after international 
terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their 
concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, 
"the United States has been very much in the backseat," leaving it to 
its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead.

There is no extraterritorial obligation on states "to comply with human 
rights," explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. "The 
obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within 
their territory and areas of their jurisdictions."

The position, according to Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American 
Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, has little international 
backing. The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Human Rights 
Committee, and the European Court have all asserted that states do have 
an obligation to comply with human rights laws beyond their own borders, 
he noted. "Governments do have obligation beyond their territories," 
said Dakwar, particularly in situations, like the Guantanamo Bay 
detention center, where the United States exercises "effective control" 
over the lives of the detainees.

Both PoKempner and Dakwar suggested that courts may also judge that the 
U.S. dominance of the Internet places special legal obligations on it to 
ensure the protection of users' human rights.

"It's clear that when the United States is conducting surveillance, 
these decisions and operations start in the United States, the servers 
are at NSA headquarters, and the capabilities are mainly in the United 
States," he said. "To argue that they have no human rights obligations 
overseas is dangerous because it sends a message that there is void in 
terms of human rights protection outside countries territory. It's going 
back to the idea that you can create a legal black hole where there is 
no applicable law." There were signs emerging on Wednesday that America 
may have been making ground in pressing the Brazilians and Germans to 
back on one of its toughest provisions. In an effort to address the 
concerns of the U.S. and its allies, Brazil and Germany agreed to soften 
the language suggesting that mass surveillance may constitute a 
violation of human rights. Instead, it simply deep "concern at the 
negative impact" that extraterritorial surveillance "may have on the 
exercise of and enjoyment of human rights." The U.S., however, has not 
yet indicated it would support the revised proposal.

The concession "is regrettable. But it’s not the end of the battle by 
any means," said Human Rights Watch’s PoKempner. She added that there 
will soon be another opportunity to corral America's spies: a U.N. 
discussion on possible human rights violations as a result of 
extraterritorial surveillance will soon be taken up by the U.N. High 
commissioner.

***






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/58ec151c/attachment.htm>

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 24 17:00:19 2013
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:00:19 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the  African Union
 Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)
Message-ID: <DUB111-W114B2F733E82454FC52BE90B4E20@phx.gbl>

IGC and Bestbits Listers
I write to you to seek your views on the  African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf 
KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. 
In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and
ISOC-KE,  and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT
Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) 
and ISOC -Uganda,  starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace
Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. 

 

1.       Background to the African Union
Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC)

African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to
intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in
cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries.
Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological
security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological
and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative
criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses
to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”.

The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in
Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal
data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime”
(Conceptual framework).

 

2.       Division of the Convention

Part 1   
               
Electronic transactions

Section I:
            Definition
of terms

Section II:
           Electronic
Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual
responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services).

Section III:
          Publicity by electronic
means.

Section IV:
         Obligations in electronic form
(Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security
of electronic transactions).

 

Part II    PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION

Section I:
            Definition

Section II:
           Legal framework
for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to
personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities
for personal data processing).

Section III:
          Institutional framework
for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions
of the protection authority).

Section IV:
         Obligations relating to the
conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles
governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the
processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of
personal data files).

Section V:
           The rights of the
person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of
access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression).

Section VI:
         Obligations of the personal
data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations,
Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations).

 

PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME

Section 1:
           Terminology,
National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber
security system, National cyber security monitoring structures).

Section II:
           Material penal law
(Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on,
computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and
communication technologies offenses).

Section II:
           Criminal liability
for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and
Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to
Information and Communication Technologies).

 

 PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS

 Section I:
           Monitoring
mechanism

Section II:
           Final responses

 

The Proposed Discussion

We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would
request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where
necessary. Also, where
necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that
need clarifications that we may have left out.

 

Day 1 Monday 25/ 11/2013

We begin with Part 1 on Electronic transactions and pick on
four articles which we will discuss on Monday (25/11) and Tuesday (26/11). 

Section III: Publicity by electronic means

 Article I – 7:

 Without prejudice to Article I-4 any advertising
action, irrespective of its form, accessible through online communication service,
shall be clearly identified as such. It shall clearly identify the individual
or corporate body on behalf of whom it is undertaken.

Question: Should net
anonymity be legislated? If
so, what measures need to be or not be considered? 

Question: Should
individuals or companies be obliged to reveal their identities and what are the
implications? 



Article I – 8:

The conditions governing the possibility of promotional
offers as well as the conditions  for participating in promotional
competitions or games where such offers, competitions or games are
electronically disseminated, shall be clearly spelt out and easily accessible.

Question: Should an international (or should we
call it regional) law legislate on promotional offers and competitions
offered locally? 



Day 2 Tuesday 26/11/13

Article I – 9:

Direct marketing through any form of
indirect communication including messages forwarded with automatic message
sender, facsimile or electronic mails in whatsoever form, using the particulars
of an individual who has not given prior consent to receiving the said direct
marketing through the means indicated, shall be prohibited by the member states
of the African Union.

Article I – 10:

 The provisions of Article I – 9 above
notwithstanding, direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be
permissible where:

1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained
directly from him/her,

2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the
prospector partners

3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or
services provided by the same individual or corporate body.

Question: Is this a realistic way of dealing with spam? 

Article I – 27

Where the legislative provisions of Member States have not
laid down other provisions, and where there is no valid agreement between the
parties, the judge shall resolve proof related conflicts by determining by all
possible means the most plausible claim regardless of the message base
employed.

Question: What is the
meaning of this article and is it necessary? Some
clarity needed!

 

Day 3 Wednesday  27 /11/13

Today, we move onto PART II: PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION and
will deal with three questions.

Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data

 Article II – 2:

Each Member State of the African Union shall put in place a
legal framework with a view to establishing a mechanism to combat breaches of
private life likely to arise from the gathering, processing, transmission,
storage and use of personal data.

The mechanism so established shall ensure that any data
processing, in whatsoever form, respects the freedoms and fundamental rights of
physical persons while recognizing the prerogatives of the State, the rights of
local communities and the target for which the businesses were established.

Question: What is the
relevance of this article? What
are these state prerogatives? And given the increased interest of state surveillance,
how can states balance respect of FOE while recognising state prerogatives? 

Article II-6, II-7, 11-8, II-11, II-12, II-13 refer to a Protection
Authority which is meant to establish standards for data protection.
Article II – 14 provides
for each Member State of the African Union to establish an authority with
responsibility to protect personal data.  It shall be an independent administrative
authority with the task of ensuring that the processing of personal data is
conducted in accordance with domestic legislations.

In article II-17 states that ‘Sworn agents may be invited to
participate in audit missions in accordance with extant provisions in Member
States of the African Union’.

Question: Considering
that this article seems to be tied to the Protection Authority, what is its
relevance? And who is a ‘sworn agent?’ What
should this authority look like in terms of its composition? 

Article II – 20:

…Members of the protection authority shall not receive
instructions from any authority in the exercise of their functions. 

Article II – 21:

Member States are engaged to provide the national
protection authority human, technical and financial resources necessary to
accomplish their mission.

Question: It appears that this Data Protection Authority is envisaged
to be fully government supported. Therefore, should we be talking of its
independence? In what way should this article be framed so that it ensures
independence of the Authority?

Article II – 28 to II-34 outlines
six principles governing the processing of personal data namely:

Consent and of legitimacy,

Honesty,

Objective, relevance and conservation of processed personal
data,

 Accuracy,

Transparency and

 Confidentiality and security of personal data.

Under each of the specific principles, detailed explanation
of how each should be undertaken is offered.

Question: Is this
explanation and detailing of how to undertake each necessary in an international (regional) law
necessary or needed? Is this
legislation overkill?

Day 4 Thursdsay  28/11/2013
Part III

Day 4 will focus on PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING
CYBERCRIME

 Article III – 14: Harmonization

1) Member States have to undertake necessary measures to
ensure that the legislative measures and / or regulations adopted to fight
against cybercrime enhance the possibility of regional harmonization of these
measures and respect the principle of double criminality.

Question: What is the
principle of double criminality here?

 

Section II: Other penal sanctions

 Article III – 48

Each Member State of the African Union have to take
necessary legislative measures to ensure that, in the case of conviction for an
offense committed by means of digital communication facility, the competent
jurisdiction or the judge handling the case gives a ruling imposing additional
punishment.

Question:  What is the interpretation of additional punishment?
Is this not granting of absolute powers to judges?

 

Day Five 29/11/2013

This will be dedicated to any other issue(s)that listers
may want to raise in regard to the Convention. Further, listers can go back to
issues of any other day and discuss them here.

Are there other articles that you would like to share that
need clarification?

 What other issue(s) would you like to raise? 

 

References

DRAFT AFRICAN UNION CONVENTION ON THE CONFIDENCE AND
SECURITY IN CYBERSPACEhttp://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf

http://daucc.wordpress.com/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/262/148/817/

http://daucc.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/paper-review-basic-drawbacks-of-the-draft-african-union-convention-on-the-confidence-and-security-in-cyberspace/

http://michaelmurungi.blogspot.com/2012/08/comments-on-draft-african-union.html

  		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131124/47ffd04e/attachment.htm>

From Anriette at apc.org  Mon Nov 25 02:05:18 2013
From: Anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:05:18 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the  African Union
 Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)
Message-ID: <qirfb8ytbvxruq6be1atpmaa.1385363118503@email.android.com>

Dear Grace

APC would definitely give input.  I had a good look at it and was alarmed by extensive limitations on free speech and very loose definitions of hate and blasphemous and speech. Also efforts to make intermediaries liable. I am travelling this week but will do my best and ask colleagues for help.

Anriette
Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> 
Date:  
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the  African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) 
 
IGC and Bestbits Listers

I write to you to seek your views on the  African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf 

KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. 

In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE,  and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  and ISOC -Uganda,  starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. 
Rgds
Grace

Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. 
 
1.       Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC)
African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”.
The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework).
 
2.       Division of the Convention
Part 1                    Electronic transactions
Section I:             Definition of terms
Section II:            Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services).
Section III:           Publicity by electronic means.
Section IV:          Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions).
 
Part II    PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION
Section I:             Definition
Section II:            Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing).
Section III:           Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority).
Section IV:          Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal data files).
Section V:            The rights of the person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression).
Section VI:          Obligations of the personal data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations, Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations).
 
PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME
Section 1:            Terminology, National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber security system, National cyber security monitoring structures).
Section II:            Material penal law (Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on, computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and communication technologies offenses).
Section II:            Criminal liability for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies).
 
 PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS
 Section I:            Monitoring mechanism
Section II:            Final responses
 
The Proposed Discussion
We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where necessary. Also, where necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that need clarifications that we may have left out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/0016247c/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 25 08:18:02 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:48:02 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com> <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net> <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch> <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <52934E0A.2060403@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 24 November 2013 06:29 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Parminder:
> To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for  doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms.
>
> Wolfgang:
> Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger?

IGF cannot decide on issues, and unless it is your position that nothing 
in global IG needs any kind of decisions (is it your position?), IGF of 
course needs to be complemented by a decision making body. Wolfgang, you 
co-authored the Council of Europe (CoE) report 
<http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/MC-S-CI%20Interim%20Report.pdf> 
on cross border Internet. Do you think that numerous internet public 
policy issues you mention there need no decision making. If so, why did 
you not recommend in your report that CoE should should forgo inter- 
governmental means to develop public policies, and allow EuroDIG, the 
European IGF, to do it?

In fact the report says, "States have rights and responsibilities for 
developing and implementing international Internet-related public 
policy...". To the credit of its authors, it also says' "“International 
Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements 
should ensure full and equal participation of all countries.”

That should seal it in terms of the issue under discussion - the need 
for mechanisms at the global level for international Internet-related 
public policies, and the nature of such mechanisms.

In fact the CoE report recommended that an *inter-governmental body* 
develops

1, General principles on Internet governance
2. Recommendations for international cooperation on management of 
critical internet resources (i would take this as pertaining to the 
'oversight' issue)

The report further goes on to recommend to an inter-gov body of the CoE 
"to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments 
designed to preserve or reinforce the protection of crossborder flow 
of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality".

I see almost all my assertions regarding 'enhanced cooperation' mandate 
from Tunis conform to the report you co-authored for CoE..

Then, why are views different when we speak of the global stage? This is 
also as much about a cross-border Internet.

> You were a proponent of better outpput in the UNCSTD IGF Improgeent WG!

Yes, very much so. And you know what was the response of most others in 
the room to the 'India proposal'  for giving recommendatory powers to 
the IGF, and making it and its MAG more functional  ...... Those who 
most resisted that proposal are now most active to empower IGF to take 
up the enhanced cooperation role - that merits some explanation....

> What is your comment to Jeremy´s and my proposal for an (IGF) Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council (MIPOC) as an addition to the MAG (which is just a program committteee)?

My comment is as follows: the day we admit business reps (on an equal 
basis) into actual public policy making decisions, it would mark the end 
of democracy ..... And there is enough passion for democracy left in the 
world that such a thing would never be allowed... For some time people 
may be able to push such an anti-democratic proposal behind the smoke 
screen of multistakeholderism but when it begins to become serious, 
people would find out what it really is about and just never accept 
it... Even the CoE wont accept it, as per the above mentioned report.

parminder
>
> w
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/4d4faef9/attachment.htm>

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Nov 25 09:19:53 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:19:53 +0000
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<528DE139.7000309@cdt.org>	<D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
	<528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk>
	<CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org>
	<CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid>
 <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD256E22B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

Agree with Andrew that ultimately substantive contributions are more important than slots on steering committees.

The civil society actors within ICANN, including me and other participants in the Internet governance project, have developed a lot of knowledge about the significance and intricacies of ICANN's relationship to the US government and how to deal with it/ change it/ reform it.

I think we are at a point where general or vague statements of what might be desired don't have a lot of value; as the call for the Brazil conference says, we need a roadmap with some specific steps.

We do intend to develop position papers on that but would look for a suitable forum for vetting ideas.



From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Matthias C. Kettemann
Cc: matthew shears; irp-sc-owner at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Nnenna Nwakanma; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit

Dear Andrew,

Thanks. That was an excellent move to channels us into more productive paths.
I would like to work on 3. I think Joana will also be interested, so let me talk to her and see how we share tasks and maybe collaborate on 3.1 and 3.2. Will confirm later.

I would also like to be able to contribute with ideas to topic 1, specially on remote participation.

Best
Marília



On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Matthias C. Kettemann <matthias.kettemann at gmail.com<mailto:matthias.kettemann at gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm also happy to provide international legal analysis regarding #2 and 3.

Cheers
Matthias


Am 21.11.2013 um 22:15 schrieb Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com<mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>:
Thanks, Carolina, for sharing.
The Web We Want community  is also willing to contribute.
Best

N

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>> wrote:
Happy to help, mainly regarding to 2. For that, pls find attached the comparative chart mapping different statements from different stakeholders. I have sent this around in the past, but it may be useful at this point. Next steps?

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org<mailto:valeriab at apc.org>> wrote:
Sorry, I should have said:

We in APC are interested in contributing to items 1, 2 and 3.

Valeria

On 21/11/2013, at 14:27, Deborah Brown wrote:


Hi Andrew, all, Also interested contributing to outputs 2 and 3 (3.2 specifically).

Best,
Deborah

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk<mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>> wrote:
Dear all

If I could note that based on its track record, and contributions in this regard this year along, the IRP Coaltion would continue to contribute to Output 3 (Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

How it can contribute to other points is for the list to discuss and decide, so I am noting the above as point of record.

best
MF


On 21/11/2013 15:12, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
Hi Andrew,

On 21/11/2013, at 5:32, matthew shears wrote:


Andrew
On 21/11/2013 09:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
Most of our recent discussion has been about processes for nominating people to different steering groups.

I'm interested in the substantive contributions we might make to the summit itself.

Assuming the summit addresses high level principles (as prefigured in President Rouseff's speech to the UNGA) and proposals for internet governance, I am interested in working on the following:


*         Preparing a submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

*         Preparing a submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I'm concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I'll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.

I d  I doubt that a consensus across the whole of the BB platform is possible on these issues, judging by exchanges over the last few months and I'm assuming that different groups will make submissions.  So at this stage I'm asking if anyone would be interested in joining an offlist group to put together submissions along these lines.

Yes, I am.  And contributing to item 2.

I am also interested.  And we would like to contribute to both items.

Valeria



       Reminding you of the proposed work plan - I'm volunteering for item 3 and to contribute to item 2.

       OUTPUTS

  1.  Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
  2.  Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
  3.  Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:

     *   Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
     *   Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

TIMELINE

  1.  Gather volunteers to lead the work by end of November.
  2.  First drafts for internal feedback on this list by December 31.
  3.  Feedback from main list by January 31.
  4.  Recommendations submitted to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014.



Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336> | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597<tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597> | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>








--



Matthew Shears

Director and Representative

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

+44 (0) 771 247 2987<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%20771%20247%202987>

Skype: mshears
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits






--

Professor Marianne Franklin

Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program

Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)

Goldsmiths, University of London

Dept. of Media & Communications

New Cross, London SE14 6NW

Tel: +44 20 7919 7072<tel:%2B44%2020%207919%207072>

<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk><mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>

@GloComm

https://twitter.com/GloComm

http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/

https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/

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

@netrights

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp



--
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org<http://accessnow.org>
rightscon.org<http://rightscon.org>

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



--
Carolina Rossini
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open Technology Institute
New America Foundation
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



--
Marília Maciel
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu<http://www.diplomacy.edu>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/0da2b1b8/attachment.htm>

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Nov 25 05:39:22 2013
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:39:22 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [bestbits] re: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Inside America's Plan to
 Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere
In-Reply-To: <5292BF43.1040705@itforchange.net>
References: <52925BF7.2070605@bluewin.ch> <5292BF43.1040705@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1279560156.10873.1385375962747.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m12>

 
Dear Parminder

Once more you hit the point ! Thanks for this info which questions all of us who are aware of serious threats facing civil rights and coming from the US.

Another information that is close to this issue is the Vinton Cerf's (the Google Chief Internet evangelist -sic) statement that on the Internet privacy wiill be abnormal and that there will be a growing difficulty for attaining it, if my translation of a french article is correct. The article concerned can be read here :


http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/futurologue-en-chef-google-annonce-fin-vie-privee-faut-resoudre-fabrice-epelboin-frederic-jutant-906467.html

It's a long dialogue and the texte is in french : two (bg) obstacles on this list ... unfortunately !

Best greetings to all members of both lists


Jean-Louis Fullsack 





> Message du 25/11/13 04:10
> De : "parminder" 
> A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere
> 
>
> 

> 
> from foreign policy
> 

>
Exclusive: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere
Posted By Colum Lynch Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 6:10 PM Share
The United States and its key intelligence allies are quietly working behind the scenes to kneecap a mounting movement in the United Nations to promote a universal human right to online privacy, according to diplomatic sources and an internal American government document obtained by The Cable.
The diplomatic battle is playing out in an obscure U.N. General Assembly committee that is considering a proposal by Brazil and Germany to place constraints on unchecked internet surveillance by the National Security Agency and other foreign intelligence services. American representatives have made it clear that they won't tolerate such checks on their global surveillance network. The stakes are high, particularly in Washington -- which is seeking to contain an international backlash against NSA spying -- and in Brasilia, where Brazilian President Dilma Roussef is personally involved in monitoring the U.N. negotiations.
The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, first revealed by The Cable, affirms a "right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence." It notes that while public safety may "justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information," nations "must ensure full compliance" with international human rights laws. A final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week.
A draft of the resolution, which was obtained by The Cable, calls on states to "to respect and protect the right to privacy," asserting that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy." It also requests the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, present the U.N. General Assembly next year with a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy, a provision that will ensure the issue remains on the front burner.
More FP Coverage
THE NSA LEAKS
Meet the Spies Doing the NSA's Dirty Work
Spy Copters, Lasers, and Break-In Teams
The FBI is Helping the NSA Spy, but Senators Don't Want to Know About It
Publicly, U.S. representatives say they're open to an affirmation of privacy rights. "The United States takes very seriously our international legal obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. "We have been actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations."
But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage.
In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas.
The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to illegalsurveillance -- which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts.
"Recall that the USG's [U.S. government's] collection activities that have been disclosed are lawful collections done in a manner protective of privacy rights," the paper states. "So a paragraph expressing concern about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree."
The privacy resolution, like most General Assembly decisions, is neither legally binding nor enforceable by any international court. But international lawyers say it is important because it creates the basis for an international consensus -- referred to as "soft law" -- that over time will make it harder and harder for the United States to argue that its mass collection of foreigners' data is lawful and in conformity with human rights norms.
"They want to be able to say ‘we haven't broken the law, we're not breaking the law, and we won't break the law,'" said Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for Human Rights Watch, who has been tracking the negotiations. The United States, she added, wants to be able to maintain that "we have the freedom to scoop up anything we want through the massive surveillance of foreigners because we have no legal obligations."
The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human rights could constrain America's effort to go after international terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, "the United States has been very much in the backseat," leaving it to its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead.
There is no extraterritorial obligation on states "to comply with human rights," explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. "The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions."
The position, according to Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, has little international backing. The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the European Court have all asserted that states do have an obligation to comply with human rights laws beyond their own borders, he noted. "Governments do have obligation beyond their territories," said Dakwar, particularly in situations, like the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the United States exercises "effective control" over the lives of the detainees.
Both PoKempner and Dakwar suggested that courts may also judge that the U.S. dominance of the Internet places special legal obligations on it to ensure the protection of users' human rights.
"It's clear that when the United States is conducting surveillance, these decisions and operations start in the United States, the servers are at NSA headquarters, and the capabilities are mainly in the United States," he said. "To argue that they have no human rights obligations overseas is dangerous because it sends a message that there is void in terms of human rights protection outside countries territory. It's going back to the idea that you can create a legal black hole where there is no applicable law." There were signs emerging on Wednesday that America may have been making ground in pressing the Brazilians and Germans to back on one of its toughest provisions. In an effort to address the concerns of the U.S. and its allies, Brazil and Germany agreed to soften the language suggesting that mass surveillance may constitute a violation of human rights. Instead, it simply deep "concern at the negative impact" that extraterritorial surveillance "may have on the exercise of and enjoyment of human rights." The U.S., however, has not yet indicated it would support the revised proposal.
The concession "is regrettable. But it’s not the end of the battle by any means," said Human Rights Watch’s PoKempner. She added that there will soon be another opportunity to corral America's spies: a U.N. discussion on possible human rights violations as a result of extraterritorial surveillance will soon be taken up by the U.N. High commissioner.
***

>

>

> 
>

>


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/eef65921/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Nov 25 10:42:11 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:42:11 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch> <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <10900ABF-DD50-43F1-BBB6-5383481D6F54@ciroap.org>

On 21 Nov 2013, at 4:45 pm, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:
> 
> Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil society representatives, we should simply support the continuation of all civil society representatives who have served less than a three-year term.
> But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative support has been received for the self-nominations of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma, Bertrand de la Chapelle to fill them.
> Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are yet to receive affirmative support.
> 
> So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying the above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see below).

Sorry for the delay in following up on this.  Taking into account the various process objections, we are going to fall back to a less contentious and more familiar process, which is that of the sign-on letter.  By no means does this mean that Best Bits should limit its actions to sign-on letters, and nor does it imply acceptance of all the objections to the nomination process that we proposed (some of which will be addressed separately).  But it does mean that, with only days to go before the deadline, it makes sense to return to something tried and tested while we work out the kinks.

So a draft letter (or section of a joint letter, that could be submitted with the IGC and Diplo) is at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/mag-nomination for your consideration.  The nominees shown in the draft letter are those that received affirmative support on this list during the discussion period from at least one person other than themselves.  The nominees also fulfil the criteria that we suggested, which were:
Must be active civil society participants 
Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions if possible
Should attempt to achieve gender balance 
Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill and knowledge set, age, disability, etc.
Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS updated on developments
Should be people who have shown some ability in advocacy with governments and the private sector in order to help achieve CS positions
Earlier the same new nominees shown in the letter (though not the renewing ones, as at that time there was no clear consensus on whether to include them) were also sent to the IGC nomcom for consideration in their own nomination process.  To forestall further procedural debate about this, I just forwarded the names to the IGC in an individual capacity, with Anja also supporting; though we are steering committee members, any individual could have done the same.

The nominations are to be sent to the IGF Secretariat by 1 December, so we will close edits to the draft letter at midnight GMT on 29 November, and open it for endorsements from 1am.  Please let us have your thoughts by then, either by editing the pad or replying on this thread.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/04ef840c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/04ef840c/attachment.sig>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Nov 25 10:42:46 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:42:46 +0100
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
References:  <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org>
 <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk>
 <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org>
 <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid>
 <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net>
 <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch>
 <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <52934E0A.2060403@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Parminder,
 
thanks for you reply and the reference to the COE background paper. 
 
Indeed, there are numerous governments (also OECD and COE member states) which still believe that the "Status Quo Plus" proposal from the WGIG (that is an intergovernmental Internet council) on top of an hierarchy is the answer to all Internet problems. I disagree. This did not work in 2005. And it will not work in 2014. 
 
As I explained in my final statement before the Council of Europe I argued that the adoption of the COE Internet principles declaration by governments can be only the first step. Such a set of principles has to be "globalized" and "multistakeholderized" to be effective. 
 
My approach is that today´s intergovernmental treaty system (and relevant intergovernmental mechanisms) are meanwhile embedded into a multistakeholder environment. This does NOT lead to the disapperance of the intergovenrmental treaty system. Governments (and parliaments) will continue to be the first stakeholder in making decisions on public policy issues related to the Internet. And governments can enhance their mutual cooperation and agree on issues (if they are able to agree) whatever they want. This is part of the national sovereignty or - to be correct - part of the jus cogens principles of "sovereign equality" es enshrined in  Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant UN Declaration on International Law Principles from 1970 which has a detailed definition of the seven jus cogens principles. BTW the seven principles include also the jus cogens principel of the "duty to international cooperation" and leads to the "no harm-principle" in the Internet world ( a certain limitation of sovereignty) which we also discussed at length within the COE. This is not new and will remain as long as the UN exists. 
 
What has changed is the environment in which governments operate. And if it comes to the Internet, this environemnt has many layers and many players. In an article - ten years ago - I called it the M³C³ (Multilayer Multiplayer Mechanism of Communication, Coordination and Collaboration). Governments have to adjust their policy and decision making to this new environment. And this includes that they have nowadays to coordinate their policy not only with other governments but have also to share their decision making capacity with other stakeholders. This is new, indeed. But this is what the govenrments agreed in Tunis when they accepted the IG definition, proposed by the WGIG. This will not come overnight. Insofar, to have a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) linked to the IGF with a (limited) decision making capacity would be - in my eyes - an interesting move into the still unchartered territory of multistakeholder decision making and the next realistic and logical step in the long march towards a new global governance system of the 21st century. 
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Mo 25.11.2013 14:18
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit



On Sunday 24 November 2013 06:29 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:


	Parminder:
	To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for  doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms. 
	
	Wolfgang:
	Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger? 


IGF cannot decide on issues, and unless it is your position that nothing in global IG needs any kind of decisions (is it your position?), IGF of course needs to be complemented by a decision making body. Wolfgang, you co-authored the Council of Europe (CoE) report <http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/MC-S-CI%20Interim%20Report.pdf>  on cross border Internet. Do you think that numerous internet public policy issues you mention there need no decision making. If so, why did you not recommend in your report that CoE should should forgo inter- governmental means to develop public policies, and allow EuroDIG, the European IGF, to do it?

In fact the report says, "States have rights and responsibilities for developing and implementing international Internet-related public policy...". To the credit of its authors, it also says' ""International Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should ensure full and equal participation of all countries." 

That should seal it in terms of the issue under discussion - the need for mechanisms at the global level for international Internet-related public policies, and the nature of such mechanisms.

In fact the CoE report recommended that an *inter-governmental body* develops

1, General principles on Internet governance
2. Recommendations for international cooperation on management of critical internet resources (i would take this as pertaining to the 'oversight' issue)

The report further goes on to recommend to an inter-gov body of the CoE "to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments designed to preserve or re
inforce the protection of cross
border flow of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality". 

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Nov  3 14:16:10 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:16:10 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTovR0t6vcusthUmbwXQO74O17=ypjj93GuE01wCpq9pSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTovR0t6vcusthUmbwXQO74O17=ypjj93GuE01wCpq9pSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <011501ced8c9$2e4e69c0$8aeb3d40$@gmail.com>

Hi Joana and all,

 

Have there been any further developments as per the below?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:34 AM
To: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
I*coalition/dialogue debates

 

 

Dear all, 

Hi. 

While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list still
remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on in the
very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I*
representatives, which I have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina and
Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also, there are others BB
subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may want to
weigh in. 

I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that
meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the
meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus
Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil
society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the
report, that meeting took a different direction and was focused on building
the "coalition". So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the
issue of representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS participation
beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage. 

Summary

After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list
(i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note
and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises
the following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra,
auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin
(2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc. 

1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the
difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the term
"coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue
for the Evolution of Internet Governance

2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel,
from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name, people got
mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are marked in the
attachment as well.

Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no government or
representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any extent. I've also
sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming events were only events
from the technical communities and there is no language on human rights in
the text, just on business and innovation. No replies here received on these
issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for our
inputs. 

3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a
thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim
steering committee (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as who
were at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respective
"stakeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that the
list is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from
business community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation
between the large group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a
subset of it that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process." 

It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee which
raises questions about the composition of the group (until now there is no
balance in terms of number of representatives from each stakeholder group).
This proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by oracle about
representativeness. 

In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:

>> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue? 

>> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazilian
summit? ( There is no governments or international organizations in the
concept note. Carolina and I made that point a few days ago, but it was not
heard until now)

>> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?

Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our previous
thread about the first report. Another report, about our the meeting with
the Brazilian gov is coming soon. 

If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a) one
regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian
government) + the other trying to reach a common ground with the Dialogue.
Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and
comprehensive way.

all the best

joana


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/ca2ab8eb/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Nov 25 10:58:01 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:58:01 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com> <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org>

On 21 Nov 2013, at 10:05 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> As the host/enabler of the global Community Informatics network which incorporates some 1500+ practitioners, researchers and policy folks concerned with the grassroots use of ICTs I think that I/we should be represented/participating in that Steering Committee and subsequent discussions.
>  
> I see no one else on this steering committee who would effectively present the position of grassroots ICT users and ICT enabled marginalized communities and I feel it necessary to insist that their voices have a chance to be heard in these discussions.
>  
> I believe that our network has as much legitimacy as other members of this steering committee, with rather larger numbers and with significantly broader representation than most.

First, I've suggested that the joint steering committee be termed a joint nomination committee or nomcom, instead - because that's what it is.  As far as I'm aware, there are no proposals that it do anything more than act as a joint civil society nominating body, and only that because of the current circumstances of exigency.  Given how sensitive the term "steering committee" apparently is, it seems for the best to avoid that.

Second, that committee is now considering its own inclusiveness and whether there are other networks, such as your Community Informatics network, that need to be included.  But that won't be a Best Bits decision, so we'll take that off-list - save to request that you send any updates on your development of a decision-making structure for that network to Ian (as the interim chair of the joint committee) or myself (who seems to have been accepted as its liaison for Best Bits).

Third, the first and most pressing decision of the joint committee (apart from constituting itself) is indeed the nomination of an extra civil society member (or indeed two) on the ICANN high level panel.  So far Bill Drake has been strongly supported, and you suggested Eben Moglen.  If anyone wishes the joint committee to consider other possible nominees, please send them through to the list, or directly to me, to pass on.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/17252ff5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/17252ff5/attachment.sig>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Mon Nov 25 11:50:04 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:50:04 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>
	<0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com>
	<29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CADFgh115V2pq5AyJbp3trP8_6_AU5wzKJOw5DPD5K+xzZXdAsg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Jeremy, for the update.

Ian, was ISOC contacted? I recall someone mentioned that in the IGC list. I
believe the  community is huge.

Best

Nnenna


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2013, at 10:05 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As the host/enabler of the global Community Informatics network which
> incorporates some 1500+ practitioners, researchers and policy folks
> concerned with the grassroots use of ICTs I think that I/we should be
> represented/participating in that Steering Committee and subsequent
> discussions.
>
> I see no one else on this steering committee who would effectively present
> the position of grassroots ICT users and ICT enabled marginalized
> communities and I feel it necessary to insist that their voices have a
> chance to be heard in these discussions.
>
> I believe that our network has as much legitimacy as other members of this
> steering committee, with rather larger numbers and with significantly
> broader representation than most.
>
>
> First, I've suggested that the joint steering committee be termed a joint
> nomination committee or nomcom, instead - because that's what it is.  As
> far as I'm aware, there are no proposals that it do anything more than act
> as a joint civil society nominating body, and only that because of the
> current circumstances of exigency.  Given how sensitive the term "steering
> committee" apparently is, it seems for the best to avoid that.
>
> Second, that committee is now considering its own inclusiveness and
> whether there are other networks, such as your Community Informatics
> network, that need to be included.  But that won't be a Best Bits decision,
> so we'll take that off-list - save to request that you send any updates on
> your development of a decision-making structure for that network to Ian (as
> the interim chair of the joint committee) or myself (who seems to have been
> accepted as its liaison for Best Bits).
>
> Third, the first and most pressing decision of the joint committee (apart
> from constituting itself) is indeed the nomination of an extra civil
> society member (or indeed two) on the ICANN high level panel.  So far Bill
> Drake has been strongly supported, and you suggested Eben Moglen.  If
> anyone wishes the joint committee to consider other possible nominees,
> please send them through to the list, or directly to me, to pass on.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/57eddb37/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 25 12:15:47 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:45:47 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeitng
Message-ID: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net>

Hi All

Is there any news from the meeting that was supposed to take place 
yesterday at CGI.BR regarding the Brazil meeting...

And have we sent the letter about civil society's role and manner of 
structuring it.... If so, whom was it handed to . I mean, have we been 
able to reach it to the right people (it being certainly already very 
very late - by about a month).

We need to hand it over personally to members of Brazil's Meeting 
Organising Committee and obtain a response...

Maybe our chosen liaisons can inform us...

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/1ba943fd/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Mon Nov 25 12:19:14 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:19:14 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeitng
In-Reply-To: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net>
References: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTph7s9EYKhtpxhb=65ZOr_DLAPTN1iMSrSU+VancjyUmg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder, the meeting at CGI.br is today.  I'm waiting for a final
version, with signatures to forward the letter about interim liaisons.
Agree its getting late.


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Hi All
>
> Is there any news from the meeting that was supposed to take place
> yesterday at CGI.BR regarding the Brazil meeting...
>
> And have we sent the letter about civil society's role and manner of
> structuring it.... If so, whom was it handed to . I mean, have we been able
> to reach it to the right people (it being certainly already very very late
> - by about a month).
>
> We need to hand it over personally to members of Brazil's Meeting
> Organising Committee and obtain a response...
>
> Maybe our chosen liaisons can inform us...
>
> parminder
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/10378ef2/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 25 12:23:29 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:53:29 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <10900ABF-DD50-43F1-BBB6-5383481D6F54@ciroap.org>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch> <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org> <10900ABF-DD50-43F1-BBB6-5383481D6F54@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <52938791.2040906@itforchange.net>

Everything in the draft letter makes it look like a Best Bits 
nominations.... If it is not a Bestbits nomination why does the name 
Bestbits come again and again in the letter.  why dont we just stop 
playing around with the process... If some people and organisations want 
to send some names let them do it together.... parminder



On Monday 25 November 2013 09:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 4:45 pm, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>> To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:
>>
>>   * Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil
>>     society representatives, we should simply support the
>>     continuation of all civil society representatives who have served
>>     less than a three-year term.
>>   * But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative support has
>>     been received for the self-nominations of Matthew Shears, Nnenna
>>     Nwakanma, Bertrand de la Chapelle to fill them.
>>   * Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are yet
>>     to receive affirmative support.
>>
>>
>> So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying the 
>> above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see below).
>
> Sorry for the delay in following up on this.  Taking into account the 
> various process objections, we are going to fall back to a less 
> contentious and more familiar process, which is that of the sign-on 
> letter.  By no means does this mean that Best Bits should limit its 
> actions to sign-on letters, and nor does it imply acceptance of all 
> the objections to the nomination process that we proposed (some of 
> which will be addressed separately).  But it does mean that, with only 
> days to go before the deadline, it makes sense to return to something 
> tried and tested while we work out the kinks.
>
> So a draft letter (or section of a joint letter, that could be 
> submitted with the IGC and Diplo) is at 
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/mag-nomination for your consideration.  The 
> nominees shown in the draft letter are those that received affirmative 
> support on this list during the discussion period from at least one 
> person other than themselves.  The nominees also fulfil the criteria 
> that we suggested, which were:
>
>   * Must be active civil society participants
>   * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions if
>     possible
>   * Should attempt to achieve gender balance
>   * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill and
>     knowledge set, age, disability, etc.
>   * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS
>     updated on developments
>   * Should be people who have shown some ability in advocacy with
>     governments and the private sector in order to help achieve CS
>     positions
>
> Earlier the same new nominees shown in the letter (though not the 
> renewing ones, as at that time there was no clear consensus on whether 
> to include them) were also sent to the IGC nomcom for consideration in 
> their own nomination process.  To forestall further procedural debate 
> about this, I just forwarded the names to the IGC in an individual 
> capacity, with Anja also supporting; though we are steering committee 
> members, any individual could have done the same.
>
> The nominations are to be sent to the IGF Secretariat by 1 December, 
> so we will close edits to the draft letter at midnight GMT on 29 
> November, and open it for endorsements from 1am.  Please let us have 
> your thoughts by then, either by editing the pad or replying on this 
> thread.
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/6ae90eae/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 25 12:32:47 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:02:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Brazil meeitng
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTph7s9EYKhtpxhb=65ZOr_DLAPTN1iMSrSU+VancjyUmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net> <CALTAiTph7s9EYKhtpxhb=65ZOr_DLAPTN1iMSrSU+VancjyUmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <529389BF.4080002@itforchange.net>


On Monday 25 November 2013 10:49 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
> Dear Parminder, the meeting at CGI.br is today. I'm waiting for a 
> final version, with signatures to forward the letter about interim 
> liaisons. Agree its getting late.

  Thanks for the information, Joana.

But then why are we not hurrying it.... whose signatures are you waiting 
for.... I thought it was decided that we will submit it on friday, so 
that the right people could see it before the meeting.... not much point 
to submit it after the major decisions are made.... And I think it 
should be handed in person to people in authority, and a direct forceful 
representation of civil society's strong feeling in this regard should 
be made, and to tell them that civil society groups are awaiting the 
response from Brazil gov on their representation (do remind them that we 
had already made this represenation orally at Bali). thanks, parminder
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi All
>
>     Is there any news from the meeting that was supposed to take place
>     yesterday at CGI.BR <http://CGI.BR> regarding the Brazil meeting...
>
>     And have we sent the letter about civil society's role and manner
>     of structuring it.... If so, whom was it handed to . I mean, have
>     we been able to reach it to the right people (it being certainly
>     already very very late - by about a month).
>
>     We need to hand it over personally to members of Brazil's Meeting
>     Organising Committee and obtain a response...
>
>     Maybe our chosen liaisons can inform us...
>
>     parminder
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/af94c868/attachment.htm>

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Mon Nov 25 12:37:47 2013
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:37:47 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a
 multi-stakeholder environment
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN55xam9_zNavKFhniy-hC2kieRpt1zqY+OV_cjQ-5=WCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiChMr486H_hnq2mwF+xLZm8-LZGz3_00Ajybc8OVAzpbA@mail.gmail.com> <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <F2B3441C-7B45-473F-BA38-B335628CA643@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN55xam9_zNavKFhniy-hC2kieRpt1zqY+OV_cjQ-5=WCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com>

Deirdre, and all,

Thank you, Deirdre.  I take your point that we should consider shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder membership-based discussions.  That is a very good way to phrase it.   (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.) 

Where should we have these issue-based discussions?  There have been a number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them.  How can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner?

We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more:

-  the IGC list, 
-  the BestBits list, 
-  the ISOC policy list, and 
-  the new 1Net coordination list.

Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the same posting more than once.  I subscribe to all four of the above.

With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution.  [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the discussion.]  I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for other purposes also. 

If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the four lists. 

IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do with aspects of Internet governance?  If we can converge on an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more positive discussion of issues.  If the redundancy is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important here.

Comments?  Suggestions? Criticisms?

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    

 On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:

> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein 
> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
> 
> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread 
> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment
> 
> begun by George Sadowsky.
> 
> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues?
> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us.
> 
> Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we  try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues.
> 
> Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations.
> 
> We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society.
> 
> Deirdre
> 
> 
> On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
> 
> Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.
> 
> <<snip>>

> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you.
> 
> First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns.  As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits.
> 
> The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize.  Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined.  Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered.  
> 
> Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood.  At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels.  In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level.  The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them.  That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both.  
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important.
> 
> Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas.  A couple of examples illustrate the point.  To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation.  Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos.  So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation.
> 
> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society."  In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds.  These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group.  And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others.  Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed.
> 
> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences.  To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals.  
> 
> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group.  We have interactions with government and may work for it.  Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization.  Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet.  Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group.   If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live.  Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do.  This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality,
> 
> I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart.  We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind  If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach.
> 
> This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet.  Thank you for taking the time to read it.  I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above.  However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful.  The more nuanced discussion can and will come later.
> 
> Your comments are welcome.
> 
> George
> 
> 


<<trimmed>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/c292eeb9/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 25 12:40:30 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:10:30 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com> <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com> <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <52938B8E.4020205@itforchange.net>


On Monday 25 November 2013 09:28 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> If anyone wishes the joint committee to consider other possible 
> nominees, please send them through to the list, or directly to me, to 
> pass on.

I suggest Sean Siochru, who many will recognise from WSIS days. He is 
one of the most prominent actors of the communication rights movement, 
and in the ICTD space, especially relating to community networks ...

parminder
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/4411b4fe/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Mon Nov 25 12:46:36 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:46:36 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Brazil meeitng
In-Reply-To: <529389BF.4080002@itforchange.net>
References: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net> <CALTAiTph7s9EYKhtpxhb=65ZOr_DLAPTN1iMSrSU+VancjyUmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <529389BF.4080002@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqsTS0bv1hWpw0B+2PhG98siMyajusDo_2ZhBAfa1N4-w@mail.gmail.com>

Its a closed meeting of CGI.br. No one outside CGI.br is participating. We
had a particular rush before in case representatives of the I* would attend
that particular meeting. That was a possibility in the agenda, but luckly,
it didnt happen. But I'm touching base with Anja, who was kindly pushing
the latest thread on this and will solve it today as well.


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Monday 25 November 2013 10:49 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder, the meeting at CGI.br is today.  I'm waiting for a final
> version, with signatures to forward the letter about interim liaisons.
> Agree its getting late.
>
>
>  Thanks for the information, Joana.
>
> But then why are we not hurrying it.... whose signatures are you waiting
> for.... I thought it was decided that we will submit it on friday, so that
> the right people could see it before the meeting.... not much point to
> submit it after the major decisions are made.... And I think it should be
> handed in person to people in authority, and a direct forceful
> representation of civil society's strong feeling in this regard should be
> made, and to tell them that civil society groups are awaiting the response
> from Brazil gov on their representation (do remind them that we had already
> made this represenation orally at Bali). thanks, parminder
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  Hi All
>>
>> Is there any news from the meeting that was supposed to take place
>> yesterday at CGI.BR regarding the Brazil meeting...
>>
>> And have we sent the letter about civil society's role and manner of
>> structuring it.... If so, whom was it handed to . I mean, have we been able
>> to reach it to the right people (it being certainly already very very late
>> - by about a month).
>>
>> We need to hand it over personally to members of Brazil's Meeting
>> Organising Committee and obtain a response...
>>
>> Maybe our chosen liaisons can inform us...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/06efc47c/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 25 12:54:32 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:24:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Brazil meeitng
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqsTS0bv1hWpw0B+2PhG98siMyajusDo_2ZhBAfa1N4-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net> <CALTAiTph7s9EYKhtpxhb=65ZOr_DLAPTN1iMSrSU+VancjyUmg@mail.gmail.com> <529389BF.4080002@itforchange.net> <CALTAiTqsTS0bv1hWpw0B+2PhG98siMyajusDo_2ZhBAfa1N4-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52938ED8.9090703@itforchange.net>


On Monday 25 November 2013 11:16 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
> Its a closed meeting of CGI.br. No one outside CGI.br is 
> participating. We had a particular rush before in case representatives 
> of the I* would attend that particular meeting. That was a possibility 
> in the agenda, but luckly, it didnt happen. But I'm touching base with 
> Anja, who was kindly pushing the latest thread on this and will solve 
> it today as well.
.
Not blaming anyone, but this is a bit frustrating... I am not able to 
know what is holding the letter back ....  thought it was to be 
finalised at least on Saturday... And we knew about this important 
Monday meeting... Is it possible for any of the 4 liaisons to hand it 
over in person to someone in highest authority at the earliest, and 
request a response. thanks... parminder
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     On Monday 25 November 2013 10:49 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>>     Dear Parminder, the meeting at CGI.br is today.� I'm waiting for
>>     a final version, with signatures to forward the letter about
>>     interim liaisons. Agree its getting late.
>
>     �Thanks for the information, Joana.
>
>     But then why are we not hurrying it.... whose signatures are you
>     waiting for.... I thought it was decided that we will submit it on
>     friday, so that the right people could see it before the
>     meeting.... not much point to submit it after the major decisions
>     are made.... And I think it should be handed in person to people
>     in authority, and a direct forceful representation of civil
>     society's strong feeling in this regard should be made, and to
>     tell them that civil society groups are awaiting the response from
>     Brazil gov on their representation (do remind them that we had
>     already made this represenation orally at Bali). thanks, parminder
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM, parminder
>>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi All
>>
>>         Is there any news from the meeting that was supposed to take
>>         place yesterday at CGI.BR <http://CGI.BR> regarding the
>>         Brazil meeting...
>>
>>         And have we sent the letter about civil society's role and
>>         manner of structuring it.... If so, whom was it handed to . I
>>         mean, have we been able to reach it to the right people (it
>>         being certainly already very very late - by about a month).
>>
>>         We need to hand it over personally to members of Brazil's
>>         Meeting Organising Committee and obtain a response...
>>
>>         Maybe our chosen liaisons can inform us...
>>
>>         parminder
>>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         � � �bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>         � � �http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     -- 
>>
>>     Joana Varon Ferraz
>>     @joana_varon
>>     PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     � � �governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     � � �http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     � � �http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     � � �http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/48daab82/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Nov  3 14:24:47 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:24:47 -0800
Subject: FW: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTovR0t6vcusthUmbwXQO74O17=ypjj93GuE01wCpq9pSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTovR0t6vcusthUmbwXQO74O17=ypjj93GuE01wCpq9pSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <015f01ced8ca$5c249da0$146dd8e0$@gmail.com>

Joana and all,

 

Please note that this following clause from the statement you forwarded, is
highly exclusive depending on how/who is interpreting it. This needs to be
further clarified, defined or eliminated IMHO.

 

Contributors to the Dialogue believe that Internet Governance is best done
through multi-stakeholder means - that is, in ways which incorporate the
views, and seek the agreement, of all those involved in the evolution and
development of the Internet

 

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:34 AM
To: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
I*coalition/dialogue debates

 

 

Dear all, 

Hi. 

While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list still
remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on in the
very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I*
representatives, which I have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina and
Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also, there are others BB
subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may want to
weigh in. 

I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that
meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the
meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus
Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil
society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the
report, that meeting took a different direction and was focused on building
the "coalition". So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the
issue of representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS participation
beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage. 

Summary

After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list
(i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note
and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises
the following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra,
auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin
(2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc. 

1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the
difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the term
"coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue
for the Evolution of Internet Governance

2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel,
from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name, people got
mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are marked in the
attachment as well.

Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no government or
representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any extent. I've also
sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming events were only events
from the technical communities and there is no language on human rights in
the text, just on business and innovation. No replies here received on these
issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for our
inputs. 

3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a
thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim
steering committee (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as who
were at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respective
"stakeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that the
list is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from
business community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation
between the large group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a
subset of it that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process." 

It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee which
raises questions about the composition of the group (until now there is no
balance in terms of number of representatives from each stakeholder group).
This proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by oracle about
representativeness. 

In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:

>> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue? 

>> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazilian
summit? ( There is no governments or international organizations in the
concept note. Carolina and I made that point a few days ago, but it was not
heard until now)

>> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?

Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our previous
thread about the first report. Another report, about our the meeting with
the Brazilian gov is coming soon. 

If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a) one
regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian
government) + the other trying to reach a common ground with the Dialogue.
Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and
comprehensive way.

all the best

joana


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/21299d1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIGE-gs(1).doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 39424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/21299d1a/attachment.doc>

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Nov 25 13:45:52 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:45:52 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>
	<0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com>
	<29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> First, I've suggested that the joint steering committee be termed a
> joint nomination committee or nomcom, instead - because that's what
> it is.

My understanding of the NomCom proposal was that this "joint steering
committee" would _organize_ a NomCom, in the sense of coordinating the
definition of the selection task for this NomCom, coordinating a broad
call for volunteers across all the various civil society networks,
coordinating execution of the random selection process for the voting
members of the NomCom, coordinating the appointment of a non-voting
chair, and coordinating key transparency processes such as e.g.
disclosure of selection criteria etc.

In my opinion, we really, really should definitely not create a more or
less self appointed cabal and then call that a "nomcom".

(Full disclosure: In my role of co-coordinator of IGC, I currently seem
to be part of this group that I've just characterized as a "more or
less self appointed cabal". I agree that there is a need to have some
kind of team to coordinate across civil society networks, whatever it
might get called. But I think it very inappropriate for this kind of
group to grab the power to make all the important appointment decisions
for civil society representatives.)

Greetings,
Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/33e02a3a/attachment.sig>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Mon Nov 25 15:36:51 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:36:51 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <52938791.2040906@itforchange.net>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org>
 <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org>
 <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch>
 <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org> <10900ABF-DD50-43F1-BBB6-5383481D6F54@ciroap.org>
 <52938791.2040906@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQYpT008Ti6oyA-3gfrXDhxb1Qr5N2jUaR3czqdv1HfxeA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder,

Thank you for quick reply and feedback.

My understanding of the proposal for the joint letter of support is exactly
what you suggest: some people and organisations sending support for some
names together. Since the individuals in question initially sought support
through Best Bits, it seems appropriate that sign on to the letter could be
facilitated through the platform. If you feel that the letter goes beyond
what is suggested above, then please feel free to suggest edits in the pad.
 I have done so, as I feel the text needs to be more precise as to who is
endorsing the candidates.

As for your observation about Best Bits being mentioned again and again, I
see it mentioned only twice in the current text (perhaps other references
have been edited out). I don't see how either of those mentions are
controversial -- that those who sign the letter identify themselves as
participants in Best Bits and that there was a discussion of this subject
on the list between the dates noted.

Looking forward to working with you all to improve these processes on an
ongoing basis.

Kind regards,
Deborah








On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Everything in the draft letter makes it look like a Best Bits
> nominations.... If it is not a Bestbits nomination why does the name
> Bestbits come again and again in the letter.  why dont we just stop playing
> around with the process... If some people and organisations want to send
> some names let them do it together.... parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Monday 25 November 2013 09:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 4:45 pm, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>  To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:
>
>
>    - Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil society
>    representatives, we should simply support the continuation of all civil
>    society representatives who have served less than a three-year term.
>    - But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative support has
>    been received for the self-nominations of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma,
>    Bertrand de la Chapelle to fill them.
>    - Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are yet to
>    receive affirmative support.
>
>
>  So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying the
> above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see below).
>
>
>  Sorry for the delay in following up on this.  Taking into account the
> various process objections, we are going to fall back to a less contentious
> and more familiar process, which is that of the sign-on letter.  By no
> means does this mean that Best Bits should limit its actions to sign-on
> letters, and nor does it imply acceptance of all the objections to the
> nomination process that we proposed (some of which will be addressed
> separately).  But it does mean that, with only days to go before the
> deadline, it makes sense to return to something tried and tested while we
> work out the kinks.
>
>  So a draft letter (or section of a joint letter, that could be submitted
> with the IGC and Diplo) is at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/mag-nominationfor your consideration.  The nominees shown in the draft letter are those
> that received affirmative support on this list during the discussion period
> from at least one person other than themselves.  The nominees also fulfil
> the criteria that we suggested, which were:
>
>    - Must be active civil society participants
>     - Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions if
>    possible
>    - Should attempt to achieve gender balance
>     - Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill and
>    knowledge set, age, disability, etc.
>    - Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS
>    updated on developments
>    - Should be people who have shown some ability in advocacy with
>    governments and the private sector in order to help achieve CS positions
>
>  Earlier the same new nominees shown in the letter (though not the
> renewing ones, as at that time there was no clear consensus on whether to
> include them) were also sent to the IGC nomcom for consideration in their
> own nomination process.  To forestall further procedural debate about this,
> I just forwarded the names to the IGC in an individual capacity, with Anja
> also supporting; though we are steering committee members, any individual
> could have done the same.
>
>  The nominations are to be sent to the IGF Secretariat by 1 December, so
> we will close edits to the draft letter at midnight GMT on 29 November, and
> open it for endorsements from 1am.  Please let us have your thoughts by
> then, either by editing the pad or replying on this thread.
>
>   --
>
>
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org
rightscon.org

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/90e1d115/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Tue Nov 26 12:53:51 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:53:51 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.

To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are:
AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:

1.       Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).

2.       Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:

A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I'm concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I'll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I'd like to know who would want to work with me on these two specific topics.
I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I'd suggest we should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB platform by mid-February



Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3



Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)

Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

Andrew



Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.

Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

Matthew



x



Nnenna

x





Claudio



x - contribute, not lead



Valeria/ APC



x - contribute

x - contribute

Marianne/ IRP



x



Jeanette





x - listen and comment

M. Gurstein



x

x

Marilia/ Joana





3.1/3.2

Pranesh



x

x

Parminder

x

x

x





Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131126/e9988adc/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Tue Nov 26 13:08:30 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:08:30 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTrbT2wJpSgp4ndLHBMSNNinwh7n9o=eOKRPa=-b3Y+czA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for leading the organization of this.
You can add me on stream 2 and 3. And I'll probably be taking actions on
number one, as I'm here in Brazil and taking this as my working priority in
the meanwhile. :)

Specifically, about principles, you might be aware that the resolution
named The right to privacy in the digital age, proposed by Brazil and
Germany, is being voted *today *at the UNGA and will pass with consensus.
Text is here:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.45/Rev.1
Deborah is in the plenary and might have more details. Its a starting
point. Also, in partnership with EFF, Privacy International, Human Rights
Watch , etc we are launching a campaign for gathering more support for the
principles on necessary and proportionate and I see it as also a way to go
forward. Taking into account the experiences of the Swedish government to
implement them.

If you think our visions match, I'll be happy to join you.

best

joana




On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:

> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>
>
>
> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like
> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups
> (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These
> are:
>
> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>
> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet
> principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in
> her speech to the UNGA).
>
> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for
> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>
> 1.       Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>
> 2.       Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
> and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>
> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in
> each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different
> civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>
> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be
> consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way
> forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let
> the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that
> submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back
> with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather
> broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar
> at this stage.
>
> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>
> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely
> to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections,
> if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be
> looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are
> many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know who would
> want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>
> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek
> collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil
> and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to
> produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB
> platform by mid-February
>
>
>
>
>
> *Stream 1*
>
> *Stream 2*
>
> *Stream 3*
>
>
>
> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>
> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil
> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>
> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on
> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan
> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression,
> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include
> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Nnenna
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> x - contribute, not lead
>
>
>
> Valeria/ APC
>
>
>
> x - contribute
>
> x - contribute
>
> Marianne/ IRP
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
> x - listen and comment
>
> M. Gurstein
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Marilia/ Joana
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.1/3.2
>
> Pranesh
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Parminder
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131126/0d0e7528/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Tue Nov 26 13:12:34 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:42:34 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTrbT2wJpSgp4ndLHBMSNNinwh7n9o=eOKRPa=-b3Y+czA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<CALTAiTrbT2wJpSgp4ndLHBMSNNinwh7n9o=eOKRPa=-b3Y+czA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBcuw5VDAzfnjcqUKEE-7Bv74FSzKoEn+oQtVsbz7h6fg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Andrew,

My apologies for coming late to this issue, and thank you for summarising
the earlier thread in such a helpful manner. I would be interested in
contributing to stream 3 in particular. Like Joana, if you think our
visions match, I'd be happy to join forces on that.

I'm also interested in joining the debate on stream 1. However, isn't that
an issue that would likely need to be settled much earlier than 1 March?

Best,
Anja



On 26 November 2013 23:38, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
> Thanks for leading the organization of this.
> You can add me on stream 2 and 3. And I'll probably be taking actions on
> number one, as I'm here in Brazil and taking this as my working priority in
> the meanwhile. :)
>
> Specifically, about principles, you might be aware that the resolution
> named The right to privacy in the digital age, proposed by Brazil and
> Germany, is being voted *today *at the UNGA and will pass with consensus.
> Text is here:
> http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.45/Rev.1
> Deborah is in the plenary and might have more details. Its a starting
> point. Also, in partnership with EFF, Privacy International, Human Rights
> Watch , etc we are launching a campaign for gathering more support for the
> principles on necessary and proportionate and I see it as also a way to go
> forward. Taking into account the experiences of the Swedish government to
> implement them.
>
> If you think our visions match, I'll be happy to join you.
>
> best
>
> joana
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:
>
>> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>>
>>
>>
>> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like
>> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups
>> (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These
>> are:
>>
>> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote
>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>
>> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet
>> principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in
>> her speech to the UNGA).
>>
>> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>
>> 1.       Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>
>> 2.       Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>> and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>
>> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in
>> each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different
>> civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>>
>> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be
>> consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way
>> forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let
>> the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that
>> submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back
>> with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather
>> broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar
>> at this stage.
>>
>> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>>
>> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely
>> to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>
>> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
>> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections,
>> if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be
>> looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>
>> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are
>> many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know who would
>> want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>>
>> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek
>> collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil
>> and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to
>> produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB
>> platform by mid-February
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Stream 1*
>>
>> *Stream 2*
>>
>> *Stream 3*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>>
>> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil
>> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>>
>> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
>> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on
>> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan
>> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
>> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
>> expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>
>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include
>> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>>
>> x - contribute, not lead
>>
>>
>>
>> Valeria/ APC
>>
>>
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> Marianne/ IRP
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> x - listen and comment
>>
>> M. Gurstein
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Marilia/ Joana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.1/3.2
>>
>> Pranesh
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131126/5724e270/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Nov 26 13:24:03 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:24:03 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTrbT2wJpSgp4ndLHBMSNNinwh7n9o=eOKRPa=-b3Y+czA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CALTAiTrbT2wJpSgp4ndLHBMSNNinwh7n9o=eOKRPa=-b3Y+czA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91D79E1E-F0BF-4F89-BE2C-3F302EF09747@gmail.com>

Happy to collaborate mainly with 1 and 2.
Best,
Carolina

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 26, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Andrew, 
> 
> Thanks for leading the organization of this. 
> You can add me on stream 2 and 3. And I'll probably be taking actions on number one, as I'm here in Brazil and taking this as my working priority in the meanwhile. :) 
> 
> Specifically, about principles, you might be aware that the resolution named The right to privacy in the digital age, proposed by Brazil and Germany, is being voted today at the UNGA and will pass with consensus. Text is here: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.45/Rev.1 
> Deborah is in the plenary and might have more details. Its a starting point. Also, in partnership with EFF, Privacy International, Human Rights Watch , etc we are launching a campaign for gathering more support for the principles on necessary and proportionate and I see it as also a way to go forward. Taking into account the experiences of the Swedish government to implement them. 
> 
> If you think our visions match, I'll be happy to join you. 
> 
> best
> 
> joana
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are:
>> 
>> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>> 
>> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
>> 
>> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>> 
>> 1.       Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>> 
>> 2.       Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>> 
>> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>> 
>> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
>> 
>> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>> 
>> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>> 
>> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>> 
>> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know who would want to work with me on these two specific topics. 
>> 
>> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB platform by mid-February
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Stream 1
>> 
>> Stream 2
>> 
>> Stream 3
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>> 
>> Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>> 
>> Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>> 
>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>> 
>> Matthew
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> x
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Nnenna
>> 
>> x
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Claudio
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> x - contribute, not lead
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Valeria/ APC
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> x - contribute
>> 
>> x - contribute
>> 
>> Marianne/ IRP
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> x
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Jeanette
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> x - listen and comment
>> 
>> M. Gurstein
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> x
>> 
>> x
>> 
>> Marilia/ Joana
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 3.1/3.2
>> 
>> Pranesh
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> x
>> 
>> x
>> 
>> Parminder
>> 
>> x
>> 
>> x
>> 
>> x
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>> 
>> Executive Director
>> 
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>> 
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> gp-digital.org
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131126/cd888516/attachment.htm>

From valeriab at apc.org  Tue Nov 26 13:28:47 2013
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:28:47 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <91D79E1E-F0BF-4F89-BE2C-3F302EF09747@gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CALTAiTrbT2wJpSgp4ndLHBMSNNinwh7n9o=eOKRPa=-b3Y+czA@mail.gmail.com> <91D79E1E-F0BF-4F89-BE2C-3F302EF09747@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <74161DAC-28A3-45A4-827B-41C529E9F886@apc.org>

Thank you for organising this for us, Andrew.

Please add Anriette as APC person who will work on this as well.  We  
are happy to contribute to streams 2 and 3 and, if help is needed, we  
would be also willing to contribute to stream 1.

Best,

Valeria


On 26/11/2013, at 13:24, Carolina wrote:

> Happy to collaborate mainly with 1 and 2.
> Best,
> Carolina
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks for leading the organization of this.
>> You can add me on stream 2 and 3. And I'll probably be taking  
>> actions on number one, as I'm here in Brazil and taking this as my  
>> working priority in the meanwhile. :)
>>
>> Specifically, about principles, you might be aware that the  
>> resolution named The right to privacy in the digital age, proposed  
>> by Brazil and Germany, is being voted today at the UNGA and will  
>> pass with consensus. Text is here: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.45/Rev.1
>> Deborah is in the plenary and might have more details. Its a  
>> starting point. Also, in partnership with EFF, Privacy  
>> International, Human Rights Watch , etc we are launching a campaign  
>> for gathering more support for the principles on necessary and  
>> proportionate and I see it as also a way to go forward. Taking into  
>> account the experiences of the Swedish government to implement them.
>>
>> If you think our visions match, I'll be happy to join you.
>>
>> best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org 
>> > wrote:
>> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>>
>>
>>
>> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks  
>> like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful  
>> for CS groups (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the  
>> Brazil meeting. These are:
>>
>> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference  
>> (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>
>> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal  
>> Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by  
>> President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
>>
>> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for  
>> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>
>> 1.       Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done  
>> by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>
>> 2.       Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the  
>> WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>
>> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an  
>> interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a  
>> number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>>
>> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem  
>> to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I  
>> think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a  
>> particular submission to let the list know, gather together people  
>> who also want to work on that submission, develop something as a  
>> smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously,  
>> ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among  
>> BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
>>
>> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>>
>> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the  
>> dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements  
>> of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN  
>> and strengthening the IGF)
>>
>> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free  
>> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy  
>> protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of  
>> expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on  
>> free expression.
>>
>> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there  
>> are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know  
>> who would want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>>
>> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and  
>> seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views  
>> to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we  
>> should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other  
>> groups on the BB platform by mid-February
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Stream 1
>>
>> Stream 2
>>
>> Stream 3
>>
>>
>>
>> Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote  
>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>
>> Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco  
>> Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>
>> Substantive input on an institutional framework for  
>> multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1.  
>> Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by  
>> Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based  
>> on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations  
>> of the Correspondence Group).
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free  
>> expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free  
>> expression.
>>
>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed  
>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to  
>> include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>>
>> x - contribute, not lead
>>
>>
>>
>> Valeria/ APC
>>
>>
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> Marianne/ IRP
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> x - listen and comment
>>
>> M. Gurstein
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Marilia/ Joana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.1/3.2
>>
>> Pranesh
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:  
>> andrewpuddephatt
>> gp-digital.org
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> -- 
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131126/e9fad783/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Nov 26 16:25:03 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:25:03 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeting -- press release
In-Reply-To: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org>
References: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca>

Dear people, below is the translation of the CGI.br press release
regarding the Brazil Meeting.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

===============
November 26th 2013

Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the
Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance

President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the
Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals
on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian
initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet
Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São
Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and
international entities representing the different sectors involved with
Internet governance.

The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and
representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about
Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to
pursue consensus about universally accepted government principles and to
improve their institutional framework.

The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society,
academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and
business communities.

“We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for
its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global
Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder
opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued
prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at
AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net.

President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida,
Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary
for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting.

“The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss
new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the
importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said
Professor Virgílio Almeida.

Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s
success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary,
which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the
communications.

The four meeting committees are:

1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the
political articulation and fostering the involvement of the
international community.

2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the
event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the
treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders;

3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing
every logistic aspect of the meeting;

4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments
which want to contribute to the meeting.

The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the
global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of
the global community will be established.

E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br

===========

[1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/a-07oct13-en.htm


From anriette at apc.org  Tue Nov 26 17:46:05 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:46:05 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil meeting -- press release
In-Reply-To: <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca>
References: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org> <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <529524AD.801@apc.org>

Thank you very much for this c.a.

Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about
civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engage
constructively with CGI.br?

Anriette


On 26/11/2013 23:25, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Dear people, below is the translation of the CGI.br press release
> regarding the Brazil Meeting.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> ===============
> November 26th 2013
>
> Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the
> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance
>
> President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the
> Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals
> on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian
> initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet
> Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São
> Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and
> international entities representing the different sectors involved with
> Internet governance.
>
> The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and
> representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about
> Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to
> pursue consensus about universally accepted government principles and to
> improve their institutional framework.
>
> The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society,
> academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and
> business communities.
>
> “We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for
> its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global
> Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder
> opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued
> prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at
> AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net.
>
> President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida,
> Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary
> for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting.
>
> “The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss
> new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the
> importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said
> Professor Virgílio Almeida.
>
> Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s
> success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary,
> which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the
> communications.
>
> The four meeting committees are:
>
> 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the
> political articulation and fostering the involvement of the
> international community.
>
> 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the
> event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the
> treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders;
>
> 3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing
> every logistic aspect of the meeting;
>
> 4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments
> which want to contribute to the meeting.
>
> The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the
> global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of
> the global community will be established.
>
> E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br
>
> ===========
>
> [1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/a-07oct13-en.htm
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 27 01:28:34 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:58:34 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQYpT008Ti6oyA-3gfrXDhxb1Qr5N2jUaR3czqdv1HfxeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <02555043-2F72-4AC3-8C87-847AB5635F74@uzh.ch> <CAEux40tLbSQZvMm+EQWN_you=YZLskB0_0tvovCFrJr74OXkOA@mail.gmail.com> <BAFBEAA7-0600-46A1-8EBB-FAE9ECA276D4@ciroap.org> <B5C73313-D8AB-4A55-9A67-4181D0EBAC14@uzh.ch> <76150617-BC22-41B6-AB94-AF7B604DEA5A@ciroap.org> <10900ABF-DD50-43F1-BBB6-5383481D6F54@ciroap.org> <52938791.2040906@itforchange.net> <CALU7RQYpT008Ti6oyA-3gfrXDhxb1Qr5N2jUaR3czqdv1HfxeA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52959112.3000909@itforchange.net>

Dear Deborah

Mine is an overall process point - either a statement is a BestBits 
statement or not (although BB elist may get used for some organisations 
to rally around a joint position, its web facility for sign-ons may also 
get used). In making such statements, the term BestBits is not used 
inside the statement as it is being used in the present case. If you use 
the name BestBits inside the statement, it gives a storng impression to 
outside parties, not steeped in our internal processe nuances, that it 
is  a BB statement. I think all (certianly most) earlier joint 
statements of some CS actors - but not BB statements -  did not use the 
term BB inside, meaning as a part of,  the statement.

parminder


On Tuesday 26 November 2013 02:06 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Thank you for quick reply and feedback.
>
> My understanding of the proposal for the joint letter of support is 
> exactly what you suggest: some people and organisations sending 
> support for some names together. Since the individuals in question 
> initially sought support through Best Bits, it seems appropriate that 
> sign on to the letter could be facilitated through the platform. If 
> you feel that the letter goes beyond what is suggested above, then 
> please feel free to suggest edits in the pad.  I have done so, as I 
> feel the text needs to be more precise as to who is endorsing the 
> candidates.
>
> As for your observation about Best Bits being mentioned again and 
> again, I see it mentioned only twice in the current text (perhaps 
> other references have been edited out). I don't see how either of 
> those mentions are controversial -- that those who sign the letter 
> identify themselves as participants in Best Bits and that there was a 
> discussion of this subject on the list between the dates noted.
>
> Looking forward to working with you all to improve these processes on 
> an ongoing basis.
>
> Kind regards,
> Deborah
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Everything in the draft letter makes it look like a Best Bits
>     nominations.... If it is not a Bestbits nomination why does the
>     name Bestbits come again and again in the letter.  why dont we
>     just stop playing around with the process... If some people and
>     organisations want to send some names let them do it together....
>     parminder
>
>
>
>
>     On Monday 25 November 2013 09:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>     On 21 Nov 2013, at 4:45 pm, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
>>     <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>     To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:
>>>
>>>       * Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil
>>>         society representatives, we should simply support the
>>>         continuation of all civil society representatives who have
>>>         served less than a three-year term.
>>>       * But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative
>>>         support has been received for the self-nominations
>>>         of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma, Bertrand de la Chapelle
>>>         to fill them.
>>>       * Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are
>>>         yet to receive affirmative support.
>>>
>>>
>>>     So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying
>>>     the above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see
>>>     below).
>>
>>     Sorry for the delay in following up on this.  Taking into account
>>     the various process objections, we are going to fall back to a
>>     less contentious and more familiar process, which is that of the
>>     sign-on letter.  By no means does this mean that Best Bits should
>>     limit its actions to sign-on letters, and nor does it imply
>>     acceptance of all the objections to the nomination process that
>>     we proposed (some of which will be addressed separately).  But it
>>     does mean that, with only days to go before the deadline, it
>>     makes sense to return to something tried and tested while we work
>>     out the kinks.
>>
>>     So a draft letter (or section of a joint letter, that could be
>>     submitted with the IGC and Diplo) is at
>>     http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/mag-nomination for your consideration.
>>      The nominees shown in the draft letter are those that received
>>     affirmative support on this list during the discussion period
>>     from at least one person other than themselves.  The nominees
>>     also fulfil the criteria that we suggested, which were:
>>
>>       * Must be active civil society participants
>>       * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions
>>         if possible
>>       * Should attempt to achieve gender balance
>>       * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill
>>         and knowledge set, age, disability, etc.
>>       * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS
>>         updated on developments
>>       * Should be people who have shown some ability in advocacy with
>>         governments and the private sector in order to help achieve
>>         CS positions
>>
>>     Earlier the same new nominees shown in the letter (though not the
>>     renewing ones, as at that time there was no clear consensus on
>>     whether to include them) were also sent to the IGC nomcom for
>>     consideration in their own nomination process.  To forestall
>>     further procedural debate about this, I just forwarded the names
>>     to the IGC in an individual capacity, with Anja also supporting;
>>     though we are steering committee members, any individual could
>>     have done the same.
>>
>>     The nominations are to be sent to the IGF Secretariat by 1
>>     December, so we will close edits to the draft letter at midnight
>>     GMT on 29 November, and open it for endorsements from 1am.
>>      Please let us have your thoughts by then, either by editing the
>>     pad or replying on this thread.
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     *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>
>>
>>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>     knowledge hub
>>     |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>>     @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.
>>
>>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | accessnow.org <http://accessnow.org>
> rightscon.org <http://rightscon.org>
>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/5e9f9a62/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Sun Nov  3 16:23:22 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:23:22 +1300
Subject: [bestbits] Day 1: Multi-stakeholder Processes and IGF
 Discussion
In-Reply-To: <5275F29B.6030400@itforchange.net>
References: <52635CBD.9080104@apc.org> <07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org> <5275F29B.6030400@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5276BECA.5070609@apc.org>

Hi Parminder - i need a clarification please... In relation to the Best
Bits quality mark idea, you wrote:
{snip}
"when some process issues were raised there were many people labelling
them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism"
I do not recall this from the large group discussion - but perhaps it
was in the small groups or was it missed in the meeting notes? To
assist, can you please be more specific about the actual concerns that
were raised and those labelling them in this way? It is difficult to
assess your comments in detail without the particulars .
thanks
Joy

On 3/11/2013 7:52 p.m., parminder wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 22 October 2013 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 20/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>>   * A *fluid working group* (to use one of our new catchphrases)
>>     could work online to distill it down into a shorter statement of
>>     principles, and get underway on that now with the aim of making
>>     at least some further progress by the time of our workshop on
>>     Thursday.  Would you be willing to be a focal point for the fluid
>>     working group?
>>   * For the longer-term, we could try to develop these principles
>>     into a standard of our own, that we could apply to various
>>     Internet governance institutions.  During a workshop yesterday on
>>     metrics of multi-stakeholderism, I first raised this idea as a
>>     kind of "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes.  As many
>>     people have noted during this IGF already, everything from the
>>     IETF to ICANN to the IGF is called a "multi-stakeholder process",
>>     yet they are so very different.  A *Best Bits "quality label" for
>>     multi-stakeholder processes* could help to provide a more useful
>>     benchmark for these processes than the WSIS process criteria alone.
>>
>
> To be able to do any such kind of quality labelling, BB would itself
> first have to follow very high quality processes. However at the f2f
> meeting when some process issues were raised there were many people
> labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism.  So, not sure
> how we would resolve the apparent contradiction here.....
>
> I do think that when people put themselves up for public roles,
> especially in very political processes like the kind we all are
> engaged in, they need to be held to very high levels of openness,
> transparency, accountability and so on, and these things should not be
> dismissed as unneeded formalism. Democratic public life has been
> carefully imbued with a lot of such 'formalism' over the centuries
> precisely because of this reason.
>
> parminder
>
>>
>> Perhaps the same fluid working group could take on both objectives in
>> turn.  What do people think?
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>> knowledge hub
>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int
>> | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
>> necessary.
>>
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end.
>> For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/7a574825/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 27 01:31:45 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:01:45 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder
 issues in a multi-stakeholder environment
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CAJwbTiChMr486H_hnq2mwF+xLZm8-LZGz3_00Ajybc8OVAzpbA@mail.gmail.com> <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <F2B3441C-7B45-473F-BA38-B335628CA643@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN55xam9_zNavKFhniy-hC2kieRpt1zqY+OV_cjQ-5=WCQ@mail.gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 26 November 2013 03:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> George
>
> Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues 
> and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that 
> constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand.
>
> The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed 
> representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity 
> called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the 
> members of the steering committees for the conference,
>

I dont think such an authority was ever give to 1net.... Though there 
seems to have been a strong attempt to claim it - so strong that many 
people thought they already had it . parminder

> and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these 
> steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups.
>
> Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the 
> conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of 
> substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those 
> of us exclusively interested in substan
>




> tive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees.
>
> In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be 
> settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive 
> issues.
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *George 
> Sadowsky
> *Sent:* Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM
> *To:* Deirdre Williams
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; 
> bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; 
> internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. 
> Tamanikaiwaimaro
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a 
> multi-stakeholder environment
>
> Deirdre, and all,
>
> Thank you, Deirdre.  I take your point that we should consider 
> shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from 
> stakeholder membership-based discussions.  That is a very good way to 
> phrase it.   (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it 
> should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.)
>
> Where should we have these issue-based discussions?  There have been a 
> number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I 
> really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them.  How 
> can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive 
> manner?
>
> We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more:
>
> -  the IGC list,
>
> -  the BestBits list,
>
> -  the ISOC policy list, and
>
> -  the new 1Net coordination list.
>
> Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see 
> the same posting more than once.  I subscribe to all four of the above.
>
> With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the 
> above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable 
> solution.  [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this 
> point in the discussion.]  I myself would favor the 1net list, simply 
> because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this 
> purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and 
> more focused and used for other purposes also.
>
> If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response 
> significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of 
> the four lists.
>
> IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which 
> vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that 
> have to do with aspects of Internet governance?  If we can converge on 
> an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more 
> inclusive and more positive discussion of issues.  If the redundancy 
> is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal 
> point that's important here.
>
> Comments?  Suggestions? Criticisms?
>
> George
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
>
>
> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by 
> Michael Gurstein
>
>
>   Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE
>   REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
>
> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread
>
>
>   Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder
>   environment
>
> begun by George Sadowsky.
>
> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues?
>
> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point 
> was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at 
> a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his 
> children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have 
> to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are 
> incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be 
> questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making 
> the same point. Civil society is us - all of us.
>
> Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another 
> could we  try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no 
> one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain 
> a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the 
> multiple aspects of those issues.
>
> Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS 
> was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different 
> types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the 
> challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight 
> the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. 
> Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead 
> of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power 
> struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of 
> trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further 
> excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out 
> in a wave of personalities and accusations.
>
> We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, 
> we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, 
> but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be 
> viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these 
> threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed 
> before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on 
> abstract external factors. And together we will be able to 
> disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a 
> point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, 
> business and society.
>
> Deirdre
>
> On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com 
> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> _Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal 
> opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I 
> am affiliated._
>
> <<snip>>
>
>
>
>     So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to
>     see if any of them resonate with any of you.
>
>     _First_, I believe that the introduction of the idea of
>     multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect
>     between the Internet technical community and the community that
>     has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns.  As I
>     recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably
>     intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only
>     to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to
>     exploit it for social and economic benefits.
>
>     The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from
>     the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize.
>      Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone,
>     visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments
>     on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined.
>      Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others'
>     opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered.
>
>     _Second_, I believe that the specific role of the Internet
>     technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of
>     participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly
>     understood.  At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a
>     very complex system at most levels.  In order to understand fully
>     the implications of policies that have to do with Internet
>     administration, operation and governance, one has have a good
>     technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be
>     at a detailed level.  The primary role of representatives of the
>     Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to
>     study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating
>     about them.  That function may well extend toward consideration of
>     broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be
>     discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long
>     term, or both.
>
>     In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus,
>     but it is extremely important.
>
>     _Third_, I believe that one result of formalized
>     multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of
>     people rather than separating groups of ideas.  A couple of
>     examples illustrate the point.  To the extent that the Internet
>     technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to
>     enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved
>     representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage
>     their participation.  Conversely, representatives of the Internet
>     technical community are people, and many are very likely to have
>     beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by
>     those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder
>     approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or
>     even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding
>     issues by separating people into different silos.  So instead of
>     recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a
>     focus on inter-stakeholder group separation.
>
>     _Fourth_, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term
>     "civil society."  In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is
>     now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if
>     individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that
>     agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual
>     rights of various kinds.  These groups represent civil society
>     goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate
>     that stakeholder group.  And although the goals of that group are
>     generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon
>     pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably
>     government but also others.  Perhaps that reflects the reality of
>     the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as
>     it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being
>     siloed.
>
>     An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all
>     people in the world and remove government involvement, the private
>     sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional
>     influences.  To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the
>     rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions
>     of most of us as individuals.
>
>     Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or
>     stakeholder group.  We have interactions with government and may
>     work for it.  Alternatively we may work for a private or other
>     public sector organization.  Almost all of us are increasingly
>     users of the internet.  Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate
>     of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the
>     people who are now labeled as being in the civil society
>     stakeholder group.   If we are all civil society in large parts of
>     our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as
>     we live.  Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG
>     is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger
>     space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society
>     positions have a right to do.  This illustrates again how the
>     various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite
>     intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships
>     between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the
>     underlying reality,
>
>     _I conclude_ that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted
>     to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant
>     negative externalities that serve to keep us apart.  We need to
>     assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind  If it is
>     retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and
>     understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and
>     can exploit the positive aspects of that approach.
>
>     This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has
>     helped me to understand some of the roots of the often
>     unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of
>     issues important to civil society and technical community experts
>     guiding the evolution of the Internet.  Thank you for taking the
>     time to read it.  I realize that what I have written, and any
>     discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have
>     presented above.  However, I have tried to present the core of
>     some ideas that I think may be useful.  The more nuanced
>     discussion can and will come later.
>
>     Your comments are welcome.
>
>     George
>
> <<trimmed>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/45fce330/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Nov 27 05:29:42 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:29:42 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] internet governac ereform
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981BD@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

I've had about 12 people from the list indicate that they are interested in working on proposals for internet governance reform (issue 3).  As more are coming in from the list I thought the best place to start with be with a simple survey designed to gather our different perceptions of the problem and solution.  So Here's a survey monkey I've set up - a simple 4 questions but they need filling in as comprehensively as possible.  My plan would be to have the survey results available to everyone on the list.

Using the survey I should be able to group areas of interest and suggest a work plan for those who agree on basic propositions.  If there are different directions obvious at this stage it should be easy to suggest who works with whom.

It would be very helpful if you could fill this in by December 10th - International Human Rights Day!

I'll fill it in myself and if anyone wants to see my answers before they do the survey themselves (to see the level of details that's helpful) let me know

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YXPV2BD


Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/aee74372/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Nov 27 05:41:46 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:41:46 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org>

Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3.

On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>
> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like 
> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS 
> groups (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil 
> meeting. These are:
>
> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote 
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>
> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal 
> Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by 
> President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
>
> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for 
> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>
> 1.Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by 
> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>
> 2.Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and 
> the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>
> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest 
> in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of 
> different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>
> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to 
> be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the 
> best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular 
> submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want 
> to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and 
> then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions 
> would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but 
> consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
>
> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>
> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed 
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are 
> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening 
> the IGF)
>
> Asubmission on the first high level principle dealing with free 
> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy 
> protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression 
> unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there 
> are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know 
> who would want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>
> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and 
> seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to 
> Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should 
> aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on 
> the BB platform by mid-February
>
> 	
>
> *Stream 1*
>
> 	
>
> *Stream 2*
>
> 	
>
> *Stream 3*
>
> 	
>
> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote 
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>
> 	
>
> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco 
> Civil and/or other existing principles documents).*
>
> 	
>
> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder 
> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based 
> on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 
> 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and 
> the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>
> Andrew
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free 
> expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> 	
>
> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed 
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to 
> include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> Matthew
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> Nnenna
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> Claudio
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x - contribute, not lead
>
> 	
>
> Valeria/ APC
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x - contribute
>
> 	
>
> x - contribute
>
> Marianne/ IRP
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> Jeanette
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x - listen and comment
>
> M. Gurstein
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> Marilia/ Joana
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 3.1/3.2
>
> Pranesh
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> Parminder
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org*
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/1cfeb73d/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Nov 27 06:15:40 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:15:40 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil meeting -- press release
In-Reply-To: <529524AD.801@apc.org>
References: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org> <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca> <529524AD.801@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5295D45C.1080801@cafonso.ca>

Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures have
direct access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single conduit.

And please forgive us for the elementary translation error in the press
release. Of course we meant "governance principles", not "government
principles". The original in Portuguese is correct.

The best way to reach the commission by email is to write to info at cgi.br
for now (if you wish, please cc. or cco. to me). We should have a more
specific email soon.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 11/26/2013 08:46 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Thank you very much for this c.a.
> 
> Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about
> civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engage
> constructively with CGI.br?
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 26/11/2013 23:25, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> Dear people, below is the translation of the CGI.br press release
>> regarding the Brazil Meeting.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> ===============
>> November 26th 2013
>>
>> Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the
>> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance
>>
>> President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the
>> Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals
>> on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian
>> initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet
>> Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São
>> Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and
>> international entities representing the different sectors involved with
>> Internet governance.
>>
>> The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and
>> representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about
>> Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to
>> pursue consensus about universally accepted government principles and to
>> improve their institutional framework.
>>
>> The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society,
>> academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and
>> business communities.
>>
>> “We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for
>> its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global
>> Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder
>> opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued
>> prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at
>> AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net.
>>
>> President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida,
>> Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary
>> for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting.
>>
>> “The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss
>> new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the
>> importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said
>> Professor Virgílio Almeida.
>>
>> Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s
>> success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary,
>> which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the
>> communications.
>>
>> The four meeting committees are:
>>
>> 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the
>> political articulation and fostering the involvement of the
>> international community.
>>
>> 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the
>> event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the
>> treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders;
>>
>> 3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing
>> every logistic aspect of the meeting;
>>
>> 4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments
>> which want to contribute to the meeting.
>>
>> The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the
>> global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of
>> the global community will be established.
>>
>> E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br
>>
>> ===========
>>
>> [1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/a-07oct13-en.htm
>>
>>
> 

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Nov 27 06:25:39 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:25:39 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Great – I’ve sent round a survey monkey to start us off

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org]
Sent: 27 November 2013 10:42
To: Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3.
On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.

To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are:
AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:

1.      Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).

2.      Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:

A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know who would want to work with me on these two specific topics.
I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB platform by mid-February



Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3



Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)

Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

Andrew



Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.

Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

Matthew



x



Nnenna

x





Claudio



x - contribute, not lead



Valeria/ APC



x - contribute

x - contribute

Marianne/ IRP



x



Jeanette





x - listen and comment

M. Gurstein



x

x

Marilia/ Joana





3.1/3.2

Pranesh



x

x

Parminder

x

x

x





Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org



--



Matthew Shears

Director and Representative

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

+44 (0) 771 247 2987

Skype: mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/c3748856/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Nov 27 07:05:47 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:05:47 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Latest expressions of interest

Just to remind everyone – I’m not putting anything together for Stream 1, my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 – free expression and privacy





Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3



Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)

Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

Andrew



Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.

Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

Matthew



x

 x

Nnenna

x





Claudio



x - contribute, not lead



Valeria/ APC



x - contribute

x - contribute

Marianne/ IRP



x



Jeanette





x - listen and comment

Anriette APC

x

x

x

Anja

x



x

Joana

x

x

x

M. Gurstein



x

x

Marilia/ Joana





3.1/3.2

Pranesh



x

x

Carolina

x

x

x

Misha



x



Parminder

x

x

x




Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt
Sent: 27 November 2013 11:26
To: matthew shears; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

Great – I’ve sent round a survey monkey to start us off

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org]
Sent: 27 November 2013 10:42
To: Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>)
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3.
On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.

To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are:
AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:

1.      Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).

2.      Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:

A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know who would want to work with me on these two specific topics.
I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB platform by mid-February



Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3



Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)

Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

Andrew



Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.

Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

Matthew



x



Nnenna

x





Claudio



x - contribute, not lead



Valeria/ APC



x - contribute

x - contribute

Marianne/ IRP



x



Jeanette





x - listen and comment

M. Gurstein



x

x

Marilia/ Joana





3.1/3.2

Pranesh



x

x

Parminder

x

x

x





Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org


--



Matthew Shears

Director and Representative

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

+44 (0) 771 247 2987

Skype: mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/1a2cad51/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Nov 27 09:10:25 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:10:25 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Brazil meeting -- press release (revised english
 version)
Message-ID: <5295FD51.90807@cafonso.ca>

Dear people, some typos and translation errors were detected in the
English version of the press release I sent you yesterday. Below is the
new version, hopefully OK now.

Sorry, I should have revised before sending as received.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

===================
[revised for translation errors -- c.a.]

November 26th 2013

Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the
Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance

President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the
Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals
on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian
initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet
Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São
Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and
international entities representing the different sectors involved with
Internet governance.

The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and
representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about
Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to
pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to
improve their institutional framework.

The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society,
academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and
business communities.

“We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for
its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global
Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder
opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued
prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at
AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net.

President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida,
Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary
for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting.

“The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss
new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the
importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said
Professor Virgílio Almeida.

Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s
success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary,
which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the
communications.

The four meeting committees are:

1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the
political articulation and fostering the involvement of the
international community.

2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the
event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the
treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders;

3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing
every logistic aspect of the meeting;

4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments
which want to contribute to the meeting.

The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the
global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of
the global community will be established.

E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br

===========

[1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htm

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Nov 27 09:34:40 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:34:40 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] IGC NomCom results + Report
Message-ID: <CADFgh121toeu+kdV5K4JwL373AkbHHrZbGD5WBz9khG-xi0YMg@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

===
 On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
wrote:


I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by
Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder
Advisory Group (MAG).





RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS



Nnenna Nwakanma

Bertrand de la Chappelle

Stuart Hamilton

Sonigitu Ekpe

Matthew Shears

Mawaki Chango



The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in
support of their nominations by filling in the form at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies
should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight
timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat







CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION



Anriette Esterhuysen
William Drake
Izumi Aizu
Fatima Cambronero





NOMCOM MEMBERS



The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection
process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were

Deirdre Williams

Kerry Brown

Shaila Mistry

David Cake

Jefsey Morfin



Ian Peter was non-voting Chair.



PROCESS

Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for
nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage
more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive
nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21.

The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one
nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom)

Nnenna Nwakanma *

Bertrand de la Chappelle*

Stuart Hamilton*

Sonigitu Ekpe*

Matthew Shears*

Mawaki Chango*

Mishi Choudhary
Asif Kabani
Rudi Vansnick
Imran Ahmed Shah
Fouad Bajwa



The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG,
asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for
endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before
our emails)



Anriette Esterhuysen *
William Drake *
Izumi Aizu  *
Fatima Cambronero *
Lillian Nalwoga



In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our
recommendations.



PROCESS



The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and
advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom
then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and
10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria
below.  Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against
each criteria.

No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria
was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for
candidates against other criteria were compiled)

Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection
only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did
serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who
were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and
whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly
with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance.

1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6)
2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the
IGC (8)
3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote
participation (6.5)
4. Knowledge of the UN system (5)
5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives
held by civil society.(8.5)
6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute
constructively to MAG deliberations (9)
7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including
the IGC on issues and progress (8)

8. Gender and geographic balance

All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates.
4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally
good result given the tight timeframes involved.

Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate
reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to
a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that
the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving
balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more
candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very
welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under
which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the
co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the
Nomcom was being formed.

I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated
work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess
candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your
behalf.



Ian Peter

Non voting chair





____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/e4ca4ab6/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Wed Nov 27 10:41:37 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:41:37 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQZR+K4sJVkLtJYz8XPDJBJQWC0kv+hbU94D52WGDH2xqw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Andrew, Can Deborah/Access be added as well? We're interested in
engaging on all streams, but with a focus on 2 & 3.
Thanks!
Deborah


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:

> Latest expressions of interest
>
>
>
> Just to remind everyone – I’m not putting anything together for Stream 1,
> my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 – free
> expression and privacy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Stream 1*
>
> *Stream 2*
>
> *Stream 3*
>
>
>
> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>
> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil
> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>
> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on
> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan
> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression,
> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include
> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> x
>
>  x
>
> Nnenna
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> x - contribute, not lead
>
>
>
> Valeria/ APC
>
>
>
> x - contribute
>
> x - contribute
>
> Marianne/ IRP
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
> x - listen and comment
>
> Anriette APC
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Anja
>
> x
>
>
>
> x
>
> Joana
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
> M. Gurstein
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Marilia/ Joana
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.1/3.2
>
> Pranesh
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Carolina
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Misha
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Puddephatt
> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 11:26
> *To:* matthew shears; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
> *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of
> interest
>
>
>
> Great – I’ve sent round a survey monkey to start us off
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mshears at cdt.org>]
> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 10:42
> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net> (
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of
> interest
>
>
>
> Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3.
>
> On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>
>
>
> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like
> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups
> (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These
> are:
>
> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>
> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet
> principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in
> her speech to the UNGA).
>
> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for
> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>
> 1.      Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>
> 2.      Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
> and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>
> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in
> each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different
> civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>
> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be
> consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way
> forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let
> the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that
> submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back
> with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather
> broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar
> at this stage.
>
> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>
> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely
> to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections,
> if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be
> looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are
> many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know who would
> want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>
> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek
> collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil
> and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to
> produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB
> platform by mid-February
>
>
>
>
>
> *Stream 1*
>
> *Stream 2*
>
> *Stream 3*
>
>
>
> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>
> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil
> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>
> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on
> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan
> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression,
> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include
> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Nnenna
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> x - contribute, not lead
>
>
>
> Valeria/ APC
>
>
>
> x - contribute
>
> x - contribute
>
> Marianne/ IRP
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
> x - listen and comment
>
> M. Gurstein
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Marilia/ Joana
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.1/3.2
>
> Pranesh
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Parminder
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Matthew Shears
>
> Director and Representative
>
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>
> mshears at cdt.org
>
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
>
> Skype: mshears
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org
rightscon.org

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/673043eb/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Nov 27 11:40:09 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:40:09 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQZR+K4sJVkLtJYz8XPDJBJQWC0kv+hbU94D52WGDH2xqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <CALU7RQZR+K4sJVkLtJYz8XPDJBJQWC0kv+hbU94D52WGDH2xqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D98290@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

You sure can!

Did you get the e-mail about the survey monkey?

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: Deborah Brown [mailto:deborah at accessnow.org]
Sent: 27 November 2013 15:42
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

Dear Andrew, Can Deborah/Access be added as well? We're interested in engaging on all streams, but with a focus on 2 & 3.
Thanks!
Deborah

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
Latest expressions of interest

Just to remind everyone - I'm not putting anything together for Stream 1, my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 - free expression and privacy





Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3



Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)

Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

Andrew



Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.

Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

Matthew



x

 x

Nnenna

x





Claudio



x - contribute, not lead



Valeria/ APC



x - contribute

x - contribute

Marianne/ IRP



x



Jeanette





x - listen and comment

Anriette APC

x

x

x

Anja

x



x

Joana

x

x

x

M. Gurstein



x

x

Marilia/ Joana





3.1/3.2

Pranesh



x

x

Carolina

x

x

x

Misha



x



Parminder

x

x

x




Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336> | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597<tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597> | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt
Sent: 27 November 2013 11:26
To: matthew shears; <bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

Great - I've sent round a survey monkey to start us off

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336> | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597<tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597> | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>

From: matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org]
Sent: 27 November 2013 10:42
To: Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>)
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3.
On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.

To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are:
AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:

1.      Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).

2.      Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:

A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I'm concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I'll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I'd like to know who would want to work with me on these two specific topics.
I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I'd suggest we should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB platform by mid-February



Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3



Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)

Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

Andrew



Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.

Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

Matthew



x



Nnenna

x





Claudio



x - contribute, not lead



Valeria/ APC



x - contribute

x - contribute

Marianne/ IRP



x



Jeanette





x - listen and comment

M. Gurstein



x

x

Marilia/ Joana





3.1/3.2

Pranesh



x

x

Parminder

x

x

x





Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336> | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597<tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597> | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>


--



Matthew Shears

Director and Representative

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

+44 (0) 771 247 2987<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%20771%20247%202987>

Skype: mshears

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



--
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org<http://accessnow.org>
rightscon.org<http://rightscon.org>

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/fdf15066/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Sun Nov  3 16:45:16 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:45:16 +1300
Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with
 fadi et all
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfXzgoU8CTAfeve2H2QTpuUBCKW0vxamSN8Y1TVdRKZrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTojBK1+XPk1feU7NdwjLYrQ5uzZDyZp4f=EwAVesygPZA@mail.gmail.com>	<701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp>	<CALTAiTrcaXg4g1q159253=ozNxoh6KMwbJOJ_j1DLm4QCzwixg@mail.gmail.com>	<3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp>	<CAK-FJAecka2s+=Ror16xq6PU0-QABZ=ruJPaC66QtH6NwYr=6g@mail.gmail.com>	<5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org>	<DDDA06A2-904C-4452-97A5-98ED60BC9EF8@istaff.org>	<CAJqNAHBb8ukTb6MZHt4bpY97PkT63pevJSyVrgPeaa7Kmwrz_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAfXzgoU8CTAfeve2H2QTpuUBCKW0vxamSN8Y1TVdRKZrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5276C3EC.3090407@apc.org>

Thanks for this useful input Anja, which i also agree with.
and just to say that I am also very comfortable with spaces created for
discussions to initiate or develop in this way esp in relation to your
point about power dynamics and transparency as a means to an end: I am
very familiar with this as a human rights defender where discussions
often happen in spaces that are created or designed for this similar
kind of purpose eg among women's rights activitists or disabled or
indigenous people and other groups: in that context such spaces are
generally respected by others, and even at times there are groups within
these groups.  
in the best bits context i am also comfortable with the fluid working
groups methods that are evolving around those who want to work on
specific issues together doing so and reporting back: as somone who
cannot work on all issues, i actually find it very helpful.
Joy

On 1/11/2013 6:29 a.m., Carolina Rossini wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Anja Kovacs
> <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     I have been in favour of keeping some discussions closed, at least
>     in the early stages, for quite a while, and have been so for the
>     reasons John and Kivuva point out: other stakeholder groups do so
>     all the time, and a strategic argument to keep parts of a
>     conversation limited to a smaller group does not mean that
>     conversation cannot be reported back on to a larger group. As long
>     as the latter happens, need more closed conversations really be a
>     problem?
>
>     As again confirmed during the Best Bits meeting, two specific
>     characteristics of Best Bits as a network are that it is
>     action-oriented and that it seeks to bridge the differences and
>     disagreements between the Global South and North.
>
>     To my mind, the strategy of being transparent at all times is one
>     of the main reasons why action is often inhibited and civil
>     society is often less effective than it could be. This is not only
>     because we put all our cards on the table all the time - something
>     which puts other stakeholders at an advantage. It is also because
>     fully open lists do not encourage sharing certain kinds of
>     information and ideas that could actually help to massively
>     improve effectiveness of civil society action (and as is the case
>     so often, perhaps Global South civil society is perhaps more
>     vulnerable here than Global North civil society).
>
>     In fact, if Best Bits has been working, it is because so much is
>     actually done by small groups of people who want to do something,
>     trust each other, start coordinating, and then bring their ideas,
>     once crystallised, to the main list (what are now called "fluid
>     working groups" in BB lingo ;)
>
>     If we ignore this reality, this will only be at our own peril.
>
>     I don't see transparency as an end in itself, but is a means to an
>     end, which is the creation of a level playing field. Because of
>     power differentials, different stakeholder groups are differently
>     placed in this field, and whatever strategies we decide on should
>     keep this in mind. The redistribution of power should drive our
>     actions, not transparency as such.
>
>     Thanks and best regards,
>     Anja
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Carolina Rossini* 
> /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/942c951b/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Nov 27 16:55:30 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:55:30 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Blogpost: Internet Justice: A Meme Whose Time Has Come
Message-ID: <04ed01ceebbb$645b7490$2d125db0$@gmail.com>

Perhaps this may be of interest

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/internet-justice-a-meme-whose-time-
has-come/

http://tinyurl.com/lwuyvdk

M


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 28 01:29:23 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:59:23 +0530
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil
 summit
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D041EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <D1989AF1-CD8E-41B1-8EEC-176874682867@apc.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <CALU7RQaSwGiHNXH3G2ATKs43FntszTzOtUsDyt1xKd87H98QHA@mail.gmail.com> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <CAK-FJAckNsjHju8n_-ooK9DH_ZSSx7QA=4dCKT5cEAheU=ZaEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh10RCpW7-UFJhAhFx11ze0rnTJNKzOWrUviX1dtSWvbWDQ@mail.gmail.com> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com> <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net> <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch> <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <52934E0A.2060403@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <5296E2C3.5050502@itforchange.net>

Wolfgang,

This is a useful dialogue....

responses below.


On Monday 25 November 2013 09:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>   
> thanks for you reply and the reference to the COE background paper.
>   
> Indeed, there are numerous governments (also OECD and COE member states) which still believe that the "Status Quo Plus" proposal from the WGIG (that is an intergovernmental Internet council) on top of an hierarchy is the answer to all Internet problems. I disagree. This did not work in 2005. And it will not work in 2014.
>   
> As I explained in my final statement before the Council of Europe I argued that the adoption of the COE Internet principles declaration by governments can be only the first step. Such a set of principles has to be "globalized" and "multistakeholderized" to be effective.

Did you ask for CoE principles to be 'globalised'!? Please see Carlos's 
intervention in this regard during the WGEC meeting. Developing 
countries - civil society and governments - resent such a procedure - of 
Europe making the principles, and then 'globalising' them. Isnt this 
undemocratic and unfair.

And at the same time, you do not agree to a 'similar' global procedure 
of Internet principles and policies development with all countries 
involved... On what basis. This is what we are talking about here.
>   
> My approach is that today´s intergovernmental treaty system (and relevant intergovernmental mechanisms) are meanwhile embedded into a multistakeholder environment.

Agree. Things take shape, and rise from this multistakeholder 
environment and then, if and when, public policy decisions are needed, 
governments take them. I understand that this is what you are saying 
below. Am I right?

> This does NOT lead to the disapperance of the intergovenrmental treaty system.

CoE and OECD have standing mechanisms to help develop Internet-related 
policy related treaties when needed. UN does not have such a mechanism. 
CIRP like proposals are calls to have such a facilitating standing 
mechanism. Without such mechanism, it will always be CoE and OECD that 
will make Internet policy related treaties, or policy frameworks, and 
then other countries will be kind of forced to join in.... Simply 
because developing countries are left with no mechanism to even prepare 
for and initiate such a process. This is deliberate ham-shackling of 
developing countries - to put then in  a position of permanent 
dependency. That is the main point I am making.

> Governments (and parliaments) will continue to be the first stakeholder in making decisions on public policy issues related to the Internet. And governments can enhance their mutual cooperation and agree on issues (if they are able to agree) whatever they want.

No they cannot.... Unless there is a standing mechanism that does the 
background work, provide space for discussions and moving positions 
forward, and then facilitate public policy making - as CICCP does for 
OECD.... There is nothing like that for developing countries.... and the 
UN is the place which such a body equivalent to CCICP of OECD should be 
placed.

> This is part of the national sovereignty or - to be correct - part of the jus cogens principles of "sovereign equality" es enshrined in  Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant UN Declaration on International Law Principles from 1970 which has a detailed definition of the seven jus cogens principles.
The current OECD/ CoE led 'global' policy development violates these 
principles in practice... That is the problem. And the need is to 
restore the equality of all countries, which can only be done by 
shifting what OECD/ CoE does today in terms of 'global' Internet policy 
to the UN.

parminder

>   BTW the seven principles include also the jus cogens principel of the "duty to international cooperation" and leads to the "no harm-principle" in the Internet world ( a certain limitation of sovereignty) which we also discussed at length within the COE. This is not new and will remain as long as the UN exists.
>   
> What has changed is the environment in which governments operate. And if it comes to the Internet, this environemnt has many layers and many players. In an article - ten years ago - I called it the M³C³ (Multilayer Multiplayer Mechanism of Communication, Coordination and Collaboration). Governments have to adjust their policy and decision making to this new environment. And this includes that they have nowadays to coordinate their policy not only with other governments but have also to share their decision making capacity with other stakeholders. This is new, indeed. But this is what the govenrments agreed in Tunis when they accepted the IG definition, proposed by the WGIG. This will not come overnight. Insofar, to have a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) linked to the IGF with a (limited) decision making capacity would be - in my eyes - an interesting move into the still unchartered territory of multistakeholder decision making and the next realistic and logical step in the long march towards a new global governance system of the 21st century.
>   
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Mo 25.11.2013 14:18
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
>
>
>
> On Sunday 24 November 2013 06:29 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>
> 	Parminder:
> 	To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for  doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms.
> 	
> 	Wolfgang:
> 	Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger?
>
>
> IGF cannot decide on issues, and unless it is your position that nothing in global IG needs any kind of decisions (is it your position?), IGF of course needs to be complemented by a decision making body. Wolfgang, you co-authored the Council of Europe (CoE) report <http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/MC-S-CI%20Interim%20Report.pdf>  on cross border Internet. Do you think that numerous internet public policy issues you mention there need no decision making. If so, why did you not recommend in your report that CoE should should forgo inter- governmental means to develop public policies, and allow EuroDIG, the European IGF, to do it?
>
> In fact the report says, "States have rights and responsibilities for developing and implementing international Internet-related public policy...". To the credit of its authors, it also says' ""International Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should ensure full and equal participation of all countries."
>
> That should seal it in terms of the issue under discussion - the need for mechanisms at the global level for international Internet-related public policies, and the nature of such mechanisms.
>
> In fact the CoE report recommended that an *inter-governmental body* develops
>
> 1, General principles on Internet governance
> 2. Recommendations for international cooperation on management of critical internet resources (i would take this as pertaining to the 'oversight' issue)
>
> The report further goes on to recommend to an inter-gov body of the CoE "to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments designed to preserve or re
inforce the protection of cross
border flow of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality".
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/b0624aaf/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 28 08:33:05 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:03:05 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] working group on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <52974611.1060900@itforchange.net>

Hi All

As you know the working group on enhanced cooperation set up what it 
calls as an open ended 'correspondence group' which will, roughly,  map 
policy issues to existing institutions, if any; assess the adequacy and 
other characteristics of such mechanisms; note where there may be none; 
and overall identify various 'gaps' which will help the WGEC make its 
final recommendations.

The 'correspondence group' obviously has a very important task, which 
lies at the heart of figuring out what is needed to change/ improve in 
global governance of the Internet. The group will function in an virtual 
environment, over an elist. Membership of the group is open and anyone - 
yes, anyone - can join. You just have to write to the coordinator of the 
group - Phil Rushton at philip.m.rushton at bt.com to put you into the 
group. (Joy Liddicoat is the co-coordinator).

The terms of reference, already circulated on this list - are put below 
this email for reference... parminder


1. The correspondence group will work electronically. If necessary, 
conference calls will be held, but the main method of working will be 
emails.

2. The correspondence group is open to all stakeholders.

3. The correspondence group will provide three update reports to the 
WGEC Chair and Mailing List at: End of November 2013, beginning of 
January 2014 and End of January 2014.

4. The Correspondence Group will provide an initial output in the first 
week of January 2014 and a final document for consideration by the WGEC 
by the 12^th of February 2014.

5. The Correspondence Group will:

(a) Review the identified international public policy issues pertaining 
to the Internet in the spreadsheet that has been developed in the second 
meeting of the WGEC.

/(NB) Additional issues may be added to the identified public policy 
issues if agreed by the WGEC./

(b) list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing 
the issues in the list

(c) identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are 
addressing the issues

(d) Attempt to identify the gaps in order to ascertain what type of 
recommendations may be required to be drafted by the WGEC.

6. Any issue that cannot reach consensus in the Correspondence Group 
will be referred to the Working Group, with the options that represent 
the range of opinions expressed in the Correspondence Group. The final 
decision on such issues will be made by the WGEC.

7. This Correspondence Group does not replace the WGEC and will not take 
any decision pertaining to the mandate of WGEC.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/21ca78c1/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 28 10:05:32 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:05:32 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <FA517722-DA6B-4401-8A28-177A63BF8D4B@ciroap.org>

On 27 Nov 2013, at 8:05 pm, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Latest expressions of interest
>  
> Just to remind everyone – I’m not putting anything together for Stream 1, my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 – free expression and privacy

I will volunteer to coordinate stream 1, then.  Also, I'm cc'ing this message back to the summit at lists.bestbits.net, since that's where it all began, but it dropped off the recipient list some time ago.
 
 
Stream 1
Stream 2
Stream 3
 
Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
Andrew
 
Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
Matthew
 
x
 x
Nnenna
x
 
 
Claudio
 
x - contribute, not lead
 
Valeria/ APC
 
x - contribute
x - contribute
Marianne/ IRP
 
x
 
Jeanette
 
 
x - listen and comment
Anriette APC
x
x
x
Anja
x
 
x
Joana
x
x
x
M. Gurstein
 
x
x
Marilia/ Joana
 
 
3.1/3.2
Pranesh
 
x
x
Carolina
x
x
x
Misha
 
x
 
Parminder
x
x
x

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/5f9d4402/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/5f9d4402/attachment.sig>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Nov 28 10:12:06 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:12:06 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <FA517722-DA6B-4401-8A28-177A63BF8D4B@ciroap.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <FA517722-DA6B-4401-8A28-177A63BF8D4B@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D98383@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Thanks Jeremy!

So to remind everyone - Matthew has offered to co-ordinate stream 2 and I'll do my best with stream 3

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: 28 November 2013 15:06
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); summit at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

On 27 Nov 2013, at 8:05 pm, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org>> wrote:


Latest expressions of interest

Just to remind everyone - I'm not putting anything together for Stream 1, my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 - free expression and privacy

I will volunteer to coordinate stream 1, then.  Also, I'm cc'ing this message back to the summit at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:summit at lists.bestbits.net>, since that's where it all began, but it dropped off the recipient list some time ago.



Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3



Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)

Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

Andrew



Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.

Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

Matthew



x

 x

Nnenna

x





Claudio



x - contribute, not lead



Valeria/ APC



x - contribute

x - contribute

Marianne/ IRP



x



Jeanette





x - listen and comment

Anriette APC

x

x

x

Anja

x



x

Joana

x

x

x

M. Gurstein



x

x

Marilia/ Joana





3.1/3.2

Pranesh



x

x

Carolina

x

x

x

Misha



x



Parminder

x

x

x


--

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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/63a78823/attachment.htm>

From parminder.js at gmail.com  Thu Nov 28 08:20:30 2013
From: parminder.js at gmail.com (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:50:30 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Working group on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <5297431E.4000702@gmail.com>

Hi All

As you know the working group on enhanced cooperation set up what it 
calls as an open ended 'correspondence group' which will, roughly,  map 
policy issues to existing insitutions, if any; assess the adequacy and 
other characteristics of such mechanisms; note where there may be none; 
and overall identify various 'gaps' which will help the WGEC make its 
final recommendations.

The 'correspondence group' obviously has a very important task, which 
lies at the heart of figuring out what is needed to change/ improve in 
global governance of the Internet. The group will function in an virtual 
environment, over an elist. Membership of the group is open and anyone - 
yes, anyone - can join. You just have to write to the coordinator of the 
group - Phil Rushton at philip.m.rushton at bt.com to put you into the 
group. (Joy Liddicoat is the co-coordinator).

The terms of reference, already circulated on this list - are put below 
this email for reference... parminder



1. The correspondence group will work electronically. If necessary, 
conference calls will be held, but the main method of working will be 
emails.

2. The correspondence group is open to all stakeholders.

3. The correspondence group will provide three update reports to the 
WGEC Chair and Mailing List at: End of November 2013, beginning of 
January 2014 and End of January 2014.

4. The Correspondence Group will provide an initial output in the first 
week of January 2014 and a final document for consideration by the WGEC 
by the 12^th of February 2014.

5. The Correspondence Group will:

(a) Review the identified international public policy issues pertaining 
to the Internet in the spreadsheet that has been developed in the second 
meeting of the WGEC.

/(NB) Additional issues may be added to the identified public policy 
issues if agreed by the WGEC./

(b) list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing 
the issues in the list

(c) identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are 
addressing the issues

(d) Attempt to identify the gaps in order to ascertain what type of 
recommendations may be required to be drafted by the WGEC.

6. Any issue that cannot reach consensus in the Correspondence Group 
will be referred to the Working Group, with the options that represent 
the range of opinions expressed in the Correspondence Group. The final 
decision on such issues will be made by the WGEC.

7. This Correspondence Group does not replace the WGEC and will not take 
any decision pertaining to the mandate of WGEC.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/66cb225a/attachment.htm>

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Thu Nov 28 12:08:41 2013
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:08:41 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <CAGF_KH_GJfgwGGtu5Xj3VMceApeHhYuR3sr8Cak59Ow-qP39vg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andrew, nice initiative. Please put me in for Stream 3.

Best

Bertrand



On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:

> Latest expressions of interest
>
>
>
> Just to remind everyone – I’m not putting anything together for Stream 1,
> my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 – free
> expression and privacy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Stream 1*
>
> *Stream 2*
>
> *Stream 3*
>
>
>
> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>
> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil
> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>
> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on
> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan
> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression,
> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include
> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> x
>
>  x
>
> Nnenna
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> x - contribute, not lead
>
>
>
> Valeria/ APC
>
>
>
> x - contribute
>
> x - contribute
>
> Marianne/ IRP
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
> x - listen and comment
>
> Anriette APC
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Anja
>
> x
>
>
>
> x
>
> Joana
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
> M. Gurstein
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Marilia/ Joana
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.1/3.2
>
> Pranesh
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Carolina
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Misha
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Puddephatt
> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 11:26
> *To:* matthew shears; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
> *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of
> interest
>
>
>
> Great – I’ve sent round a survey monkey to start us off
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mshears at cdt.org>]
> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 10:42
> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net> (
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of
> interest
>
>
>
> Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3.
>
> On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>
>
>
> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like
> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups
> (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These
> are:
>
> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>
> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet
> principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in
> her speech to the UNGA).
>
> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for
> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>
> 1.      Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>
> 2.      Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
> and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>
> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in
> each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different
> civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>
> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be
> consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way
> forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let
> the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that
> submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back
> with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather
> broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar
> at this stage.
>
> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>
> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely
> to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections,
> if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be
> looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are
> many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know who would
> want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>
> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek
> collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil
> and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to
> produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB
> platform by mid-February
>
>
>
>
>
> *Stream 1*
>
> *Stream 2*
>
> *Stream 3*
>
>
>
> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>
> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil
> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>
> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on
> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan
> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression,
> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include
> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Nnenna
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> x - contribute, not lead
>
>
>
> Valeria/ APC
>
>
>
> x - contribute
>
> x - contribute
>
> Marianne/ IRP
>
>
>
> x
>
>
>
> Jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
> x - listen and comment
>
> M. Gurstein
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Marilia/ Joana
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.1/3.2
>
> Pranesh
>
>
>
> x
>
> x
>
> Parminder
>
> x
>
> x
>
> x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Matthew Shears
>
> Director and Representative
>
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>
> mshears at cdt.org
>
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
>
> Skype: mshears
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (
www.internetjurisdiction.net)
Member, ICANN Board of Directors
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/08e8dfc1/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Nov 28 12:10:18 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:10:18 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH_GJfgwGGtu5Xj3VMceApeHhYuR3sr8Cak59Ow-qP39vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <CAGF_KH_GJfgwGGtu5Xj3VMceApeHhYuR3sr8Cak59Ow-qP39vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D983CB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Great will do

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
Sent: 28 November 2013 17:09
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

Hi Andrew, nice initiative. Please put me in for Stream 3.

Best

Bertrand


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
Latest expressions of interest

Just to remind everyone - I'm not putting anything together for Stream 1, my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 - free expression and privacy





Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3



Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)

Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

Andrew



Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.

Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

Matthew



x

 x

Nnenna

x





Claudio



x - contribute, not lead



Valeria/ APC



x - contribute

x - contribute

Marianne/ IRP



x



Jeanette





x - listen and comment

Anriette APC

x

x

x

Anja

x



x

Joana

x

x

x

M. Gurstein



x

x

Marilia/ Joana





3.1/3.2

Pranesh



x

x

Carolina

x

x

x

Misha



x



Parminder

x

x

x




Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336> | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597<tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597> | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt
Sent: 27 November 2013 11:26
To: matthew shears; <bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

Great - I've sent round a survey monkey to start us off

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336> | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597<tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597> | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>

From: matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org]
Sent: 27 November 2013 10:42
To: Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>)
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest

Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3.
On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.

To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are:
AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:

1.      Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others).

2.      Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:

A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc.  Note that I'm concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I'll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I'd like to know who would want to work with me on these two specific topics.
I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I'd suggest we should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB platform by mid-February



Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3



Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)

Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).

Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).

Andrew



Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.

Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)

Matthew



x



Nnenna

x





Claudio



x - contribute, not lead



Valeria/ APC



x - contribute

x - contribute

Marianne/ IRP



x



Jeanette





x - listen and comment

M. Gurstein



x

x

Marilia/ Joana





3.1/3.2

Pranesh



x

x

Parminder

x

x

x





Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336> | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597<tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597> | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>


--



Matthew Shears

Director and Representative

Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

+44 (0) 771 247 2987<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%20771%20247%202987>

Skype: mshears

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



--
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net<http://www.internetjurisdiction.net>)
Member, ICANN Board of Directors
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/13009e8c/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Thu Nov 28 12:49:40 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:49:40 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH_GJfgwGGtu5Xj3VMceApeHhYuR3sr8Cak59Ow-qP39vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAGF_KH_GJfgwGGtu5Xj3VMceApeHhYuR3sr8Cak59Ow-qP39vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ccc51f6f-6108-4b7b-bf24-25696d6edcab@email.android.com>

Hi,

Please put me down for thread 2.

Thanks

Avri

Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Andrew, nice initiative. Please put me in for Stream 3.
>
>Best
>
>Bertrand
>
>
>
>On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Puddephatt
><Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:
>
>> Latest expressions of interest
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to remind everyone – I’m not putting anything together for
>Stream 1,
>> my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 – free
>> expression and privacy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Stream 1*
>>
>> *Stream 2*
>>
>> *Stream 3*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>>
>> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco
>Civil
>> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>>
>> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
>> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN
>(based on
>> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2.
>Orphan
>> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
>> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
>expression,
>> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>
>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to
>include
>> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>  x
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>>
>> x - contribute, not lead
>>
>>
>>
>> Valeria/ APC
>>
>>
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> Marianne/ IRP
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> x - listen and comment
>>
>> Anriette APC
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Anja
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>> Joana
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> M. Gurstein
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Marilia/ Joana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.1/3.2
>>
>> Pranesh
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Carolina
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Misha
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>andrewpuddephatt
>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Puddephatt
>> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 11:26
>> *To:* matthew shears; <bestbits at lists. net>
>(bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
>> *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of
>> interest
>>
>>
>>
>> Great – I’ve sent round a survey monkey to start us off
>>
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>andrewpuddephatt
>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mshears at cdt.org>]
>> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 10:42
>> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net> (
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of
>> interest
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3.
>>
>> On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>
>> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>>
>>
>>
>> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like
>> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS
>groups
>> (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting.
>These
>> are:
>>
>> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote
>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>
>> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal
>Internet
>> principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President
>Rousseff in
>> her speech to the UNGA).
>>
>> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>
>> 1.      Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>
>> 2.      Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the
>WGEC
>> and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>
>> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest
>in
>> each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of
>different
>> civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>>
>> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to
>be
>> consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the
>best way
>> forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to
>let
>> the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that
>> submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it
>back
>> with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to
>gather
>> broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high
>a bar
>> at this stage.
>>
>> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>>
>> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are
>likely
>> to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the
>IGF)
>>
>> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
>> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy
>protections,
>> if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so
>I’ll be
>> looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>
>> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there
>are
>> many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know who
>would
>> want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>>
>> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and
>seek
>> collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to
>Brazil
>> and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to
>> produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB
>> platform by mid-February
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Stream 1*
>>
>> *Stream 2*
>>
>> *Stream 3*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>>
>> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco
>Civil
>> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>>
>> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
>> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN
>(based on
>> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2.
>Orphan
>> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
>> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
>expression,
>> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>
>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to
>include
>> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>>
>> x - contribute, not lead
>>
>>
>>
>> Valeria/ APC
>>
>>
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> Marianne/ IRP
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> x - listen and comment
>>
>> M. Gurstein
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Marilia/ Joana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.1/3.2
>>
>> Pranesh
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/7ac2e0b4/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Thu Nov 28 22:29:14 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:29:14 +1300
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <ccc51f6f-6108-4b7b-bf24-25696d6edcab@email.android.com>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAGF_KH_GJfgwGGtu5Xj3VMceApeHhYuR3sr8Cak59Ow-qP39vg@mail.gmail.com> <ccc51f6f-6108-4b7b-bf24-25696d6edcab@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <52980A0A.1090501@apc.org>

Thanks for this Andrew and Jeremy - I would like to contribute to
streams 2 and 3
Joy
On 29/11/2013 6:49 a.m., Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please put me down for thread 2.
>
> Thanks
>
> Avri
>
> Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi Andrew, nice initiative. Please put me in for Stream 3.
>
>     Best
>
>     Bertrand
>
>
>
>     On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:
>
>         Latest expressions of interest Just to remind everyone – I’m
>         not putting anything together for Stream 1, my only interest
>         is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 – free expression
>         and privacy *Stream 1* *Stream 2* *Stream 3* *Recommendation
>         on process issues for the conference (remote participation,
>         stakeholder representation and selection)* *Substantive input
>         on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or
>         other existing principles documents).* ! *Substantive input on
>         an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet
>         governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based
>         on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or
>         others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put
>         before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence
>         Group).* Andrew Submission on the first high level principle
>         dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR
>         standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet
>         governance that keep the dispersed structure and
>         multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include
>         ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>         Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/
>         APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x -
>         listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M.
>         Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Pranesh x x Carolina x x x
>         Misha x Parminder x x x *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL
>         PARTNERS* DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64
>         Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M:
>         +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt *gp-digital.org
>         <http://gp-digital.org> <http://gp-digital.org>* *From:*
>         bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
>         bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
>         Puddephatt *Sent:* 27 November 2013 11:26 *To:* matthew
>         shears; <bestbits at lists. net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
>         *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input -
>         expression of interest Great – I’ve sent round a survey monkey
>         to start us off *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS*
>         DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard
>         Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771
>         339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt *gp-digital.org
>         <http://gp-digital.org> <http://gp-digital.org>* *! From:*
>         matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mshears at cdt.org>]
>         *Sent:* 27 November 2013 10:42 *To:* Andrew Puddephatt;
>         <bestbits at lists. net> ( bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
>         *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input -
>         expression of interest Hi Andrew - I am also interested in
>         item 3. On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>         Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference. To
>         remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks
>         like there are three broad areas within which it would be
>         useful for CS groups (and others) to make pro-active
>         submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are: AREA 1 -
>         Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote
>         participation, stakeholder representation and selection) AREA
>         2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal
>         Internet principles (likely t! o cover the areas sketched out
>         by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA). AREA 3 -
>         Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>         multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1.
>         Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>         Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues
>         (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
>         recommendations of the Correspondence Group). We have produced
>         a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each
>         of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of
>         different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>         Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not
>         seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these
>         issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants
>         to lead on a particular submission to let the list know,
>         gather together people who also want ! to work on that
>         submission, develop something as a smaller group and then
>         share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally
>         submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB
>         participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this
>         stage. For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs: A
>         submission on reforming internet governance that keep the
>         dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation
>         (elements of which are likely to include ideas on
>         internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) A
>         submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
>         expression, privacy etc. Note that I’m concerned that privacy
>         protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of
>         expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards
>         on free expression. Not everyone will agree with that take on
>         things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so
>         a! t this stage I’d like to know who would want to work with
>         me on these two specific topics. I would encourage others to
>         set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators. As
>         we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or
>         other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to
>         produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on
>         the BB platform by mid-February *Stream 1* *Stream 2* *Stream
>         3* *Recommendation on process issues for the conference
>         (remote participation, stakeholder representation and
>         selection)* *Substantive input on universal Internet
>         principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing
>         principles documents).* *Substantive input on an institutional
>         framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>         1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done
>         by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan
>         issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and
>         the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* Andrew
>         Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
>         expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free
>         expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that
>         keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder
>         participation (which is likely to include ideas on
>         internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x
>         Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x -
>         contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen!
>         and comment M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Pranesh x x
>         Parminder x x x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Avri Doria 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/0a4e097f/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Nov  4 06:12:48 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 03:12:48 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [OGP] fw URGENT: Call for signatures on Surveillance
 statement
In-Reply-To: <5275506A.40505@cippic.ca>
References: <00a101ced715$83e21540$8ba63fc0$@org> <527447D0.2010207@eff.org>	<mvmxmg.vkj0lw@www.webmail.iptelecom.net.ua> <5275506A.40505@cippic.ca>
Message-ID: <00ca01ced94e$d248b5a0$76da20e0$@gmail.com>

An interesting sign on letter below from our fraternal CS cousins in the
Open Government Partnership process.

 

The sign on letter is I think of particular interest in that it calls for
transparency around surveillance to be built into national OGP
plans/commitments. (evidently there was a significant dust-up between Indian
Right to Information activist Aruna Roy and John Kerry over transparency,
open government and surveillance as a highlight of the just concluded OGP
event in London.

 

M

 

From: OGP [mailto:ogp-bounces at lists.opengovcanada.ca] On Behalf Of Tamir
Israel
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:20 PM
To: OGP at lists.opengovcanada.ca
Subject: [OGP] fw URGENT: Call for signatures on Surveillance statement

 

Please see the request below for a call for signatories for a statement to
the OGP on the need for greater transparency in surveillance.

Best,
Tamir




-------- Original Message --------
> Subject:      FW: URGENT: Call for signatures on Surveillance
> statement
> Date:        Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:17:38 +0100
>  From:       Helen Darbishire  <mailto:helen at access-info.org>
<helen at access-info.org>
> CC:   'Anne Jellema'  <mailto:anne at webfoundation.org>
<anne at webfoundation.org>
> 
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> I am writing from the Open Government Partnership meeting in London to
> urge you to sign a statement that civil society is issuing about the
> need for greater transparency around Surveillance.
> 
> 
> Signatures thus far are below. Please send your signatures to me and to
> Anne Jellema of the Web Foundation (anne at webfoundation.org
>  <mailto:anne at webfoundation.org> <mailto:anne at webfoundation.org>).
> 
>  *Timing*: we will issue the statement at the OGP meeting today but will
> continue to collect signatures through next week, with final date being
> Monday 11 November.  *Please sign today if you can*!
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance!
> 
> 
> 
> Helen
> 
> *----------------------------------------------*
> 
> Helen Darbishire
> 
> *Executive Director, Access Info Europe  <http://www.access-info.org/>
<http://www.access-info.org/>*
> 
> Mobile + 34 667 685 319
> 
> Skype: helen_darbishire
> 
> Twitter @helen_access
> 
> 
> 
> -------//-------//---------//-------//-----
> 
> 
> 
> Statement of Concern on Disproportionate Surveillance
> 
> 
> 
> We, the undersigned civil society organisations, affirm our deep
> commitment to the goals of the Open Government Partnership, which in its
> declaration endorsed "more transparent, accountable, responsive and
> effective government" founded on the principles of the Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> We join other civil society organisations, human rights groups,
> academics and ordinary citizens in expressing our grave concern over
> allegations that governments around the world, including many OGP
> members, have been routinely intercepting and retaining the private
> communications of entire populations, in secret, without warrants and
> with little or no meaningful oversight. Such practices allegedly include
> the routine exchange of "foreign" surveillance data in order to evade
> domestic laws that restrict governments' ability to spy on their own
> citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> Such practices erode the checks and balances on which accountability
> depends, and have a deeply chilling effect on freedom of expression,
> information and association, without which the ideals of open government
> have no meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> As Brazil's President, Dilma Rousseff, recently said at the United
> Nations, "In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true
> freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy."
> 
> 
> 
> Activities that restrict the right to privacy, including communications
> surveillance, can only be justified when they are prescribed by law, are
> necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and are proportionate to the aim
> pursued.# Without firm legislative and judicial checks on the
> surveillance powers of the executive branch, and robust protections for
> the media and public interest whistleblowers, abuses can and will occur.
> 
> 
> 
> We call on all OGP member governments to:
> 
>  recognise the need to update understandings of existing privacy and
> human rights law to reflect modern surveillance technologies and
> techniques.
> 
>  commit in their OGP Action Plans to complete by October 2014 a review
> of national laws, with the aim of defining reforms needed to regulate
> necessary, legitimate and proportional State involvement in
> communications surveillance; to guarantee freedom of the press; and to
> protect whistleblowers who lawfully reveal abuses of state power.
> 
>  commit in their OGP Action Plans to transparency on the mechanisms for
> surveillance, on exports of surveillance technologies, aid directed
> towards implementation of surveillance technologies, and agreements to
> share citizen data among states.
> 
> 
> 
> SIGNED:
> 
> 
> 
> Access Info Europe
> 
> Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre, Sri Lanka
> 
> Association EPAS, Romania
> 
> Center for Independent Journalism, Romania
> 
> *Centre for Law and Democracy, USA*
> 
> *Center for Public Interest Advocacy, Bosnia Herzegovina*
> 
> Independent Journalism Center, Moldova
> 
> Freedom of Information Center, Armenia
> 
> Freedom of Information Forum, Austria (FOIAustria)
> 
> Fundar, Center for Research and Analysis, Mexico
> 
> GESOC, Mexico
> 
> IEEPP, Nicaragua
> 
> Media Rights Agenda, Nigeria
> 
> MKSS, India
> 
> NATO Watch, UK
> 
> Obong Denis Udo-Inyang Foundation,Nigeria
> 
> Open Knowledge Foundation
> 
> Open Rights Group, UK
> 
> Privacy and Access Council of Canada  Conseil du Canada de lAccХs et
> la vie PrivИe
> 
> PROETICA PERU
> 
> Transparency International Armenia
> 
> World Wide Web Foundation
> 
> 
> 
> *Individuals*
> 
> Aruna Roy
> 
> Tim Berners-Lee
> 
> Vinod Rai, Former Comptroller and Auditor General, India
> 
> David Eaves
> 
> Dwight E. Hines, Ph.D
> 
> Nikhil Dey
> 
> Petru Botnaru, freelance journalist, Moldova
> 
> Satbir Singh, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Co-Chair, South
> Asian Right to Information Advocates Network
> 
> Shankar Singh
> 
> Sowmya Kidambi
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/74e1c2d3/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Nov 28 22:50:45 2013
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:50:45 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <52980A0A.1090501@apc.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981D8@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D981ED@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <CAGF_KH_GJfgwGGtu5Xj3VMceApeHhYuR3sr8Cak59Ow-qP39vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ccc51f6f-6108-4b7b-bf24-25696d6edcab@email.android.com> <52980A0A.1090501@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=yS33W-oGdwOvf2sO1kZOSeNaguC0LaoU495uGERikXA@mail.gmail.com>

hi,

I would like to join for stream 2 and 3

Best,

Rafik


2013/11/29 joy <joy at apc.org>

>  Thanks for this Andrew and Jeremy - I would like to contribute to streams
> 2 and 3
> Joy
>
> On 29/11/2013 6:49 a.m., Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please put me down for thread 2.
>
> Thanks
>
> Avri
>
> Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com><bdelachapelle at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew, nice initiative. Please put me in for Stream 3.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bertrand
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org> <Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Latest expressions of interest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to remind everyone – I’m not putting anything together for Stream 1,
>>> my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 – free
>>> expression and privacy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Stream 1*
>>>
>>> *Stream 2*
>>>
>>> *Stream 3*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>>>
>>> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil
>>> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>>> !
>>>
>>> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
>>> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on
>>> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan
>>> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
>>> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression,
>>> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>>
>>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
>>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include
>>> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> Nnenna
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Claudio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x - contribute, not lead
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Valeria/ APC
>>>
>>>
>>> x - contribute
>>>
>>> x - contribute
>>>
>>> Marianne/ IRP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x - listen and comment
>>>
>>> Anriette APC
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> Anja
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> Joana
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> M. Gurstein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> Marilia/ Joana
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.1/3.2
>>>
>>> Pranesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> Carolina
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> Misha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>>
>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>
>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>>> andrewpuddephatt
>>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Puddephatt
>>> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 11:26
>>> *To:* matthew shears; <bestbits at lists. net> <bestbits at lists.net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
>>> *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of
>>> interest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Great – I’ve sent round a survey monkey to start us off
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>>
>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>
>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>>> *gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *!
>>>  From:*
>>> matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mshears at cdt.org> <mshears at cdt.org> <mshears at cdt.org>]
>>> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 10:42
>>> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt; <bestbits at lists. net> <bestbits at lists.net> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of
>>> interest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3.
>>>
>>> On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>>
>>> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like
>>> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups
>>> (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These
>>> are:
>>>
>>> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote
>>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>>
>>> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet
>>> principles (likely t!
>>>  o cover
>>> the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in
>>> her speech to the UNGA).
>>>
>>> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>>
>>> 1.      Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by
>>> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>>
>>> 2.      Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC
>>> and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>>
>>> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in
>>> each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different
>>> civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>>>
>>> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be
>>> consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way
>>> forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let
>>> the list know, gather together people who also want !
>>>  to work
>>> on that
>>> submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back
>>> with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather
>>> broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar
>>> at this stage.
>>>
>>> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>>>
>>> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
>>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely
>>> to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>>
>>> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free
>>> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections,
>>> if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be
>>> looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>>
>>> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are
>>> many other issues to focus on so a!
>>>  t this
>>> stage I’d like to know who would
>>> want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>>>
>>> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek
>>> collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil
>>> and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to
>>> produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB
>>> platform by mid-February
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Stream 1*
>>>
>>> *Stream 2*
>>>
>>> *Stream 3*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>>>
>>> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil
>>> and/or other existing principles documents).*
>>>
>>> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder
>>> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on
>>> existing work done by
>>> Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan
>>> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the
>>> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression,
>>> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>>
>>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed
>>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include
>>> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nnenna
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Claudio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x - contribute, not lead
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Valeria/ APC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x - contribute
>>>
>>> x - contribute
>>>
>>> Marianne/ IRP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x - listen!
>>>   and
>>> comment
>>>
>>> M. Gurstein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> Marilia/ Joana
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.1/3.2
>>>
>>> Pranesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>>
>>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Avri Doria
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/020b2a4b/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 28 23:00:43 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:00:43 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] MAG nomination letter for optional sign-on endorsement
Message-ID: <5298116B.2040503@ciroap.org>

This follows on directly from the thread "Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG
nominations for your approval - URGENT", but I'm starting a new thread
for better visibility.

Based on discussions in the old thread and amendments made in the draft
etherpad letter, a final sign-on endorsement letter is now available
online to express your support for nominees to the 2014 IGF MAG:

http://bestbits.net/2014-mag-nominations/

Please read and sign on if you agree!

For your convenience, the final text is also shown below:

    The undersigned organisations and individuals from civil society,
    who are participants in the Best Bits platform on Internet
    governance and Internet rights, submit this note in response to the
    Under-Secretary-General's call for nominations for the IGF's
    Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for 2014.

    In a period of open discussion on the Best Bits mailing list that
    took place between 12 and 29 November, nominations were called for
    and those nominations were discussed, with reference to a set of
    suggested criteria, namely:

      * Must be active civil society participants
      * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions if
        possible
      * Should attempt to achieve gender balance
      * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill and
        knowledge set, age, disability, etc.
      * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS
        updated on developments
      * Should be people who have shown some ability in advocacy with
        governments and the private sector in order to help achieve CS
        positions

    In the course of discussions the nominations of new candidates
    *Matthew Shears*, *Nnenna Nwakanma* and *Bertrand de la Chapelle*
    have received affirmative support from the organizations and
    individuals below, whilst the renewal of the terms of *Anriette
    Esterhuysen*, *Izumi Aizu* and *William Drake* were also
    affirmatively supported.  This does not necessarily reflect on the
    candidacy for appointment or renewal of other civil society
    candidates not mentioned.

    We humbly submit the above nominations for your consideration in the
    selection of candidates for the 2014 MAG.


We are still investigating whether the text can be packaged into a joint
letter that goes with nominations from other civil society networks, but
if not, that will not hold us up from sending it separately before the
deadline, which is 1 December.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/5f486056/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/5f486056/attachment.sig>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 28 23:36:15 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:36:15 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting of
 High-Level Panel
Message-ID: <529819BF.2050604@ciroap.org>

I'm starting another new thread for visibility, though this too follows
on from an old one, "Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering
Committee - as received".

Thanks or the support that many of you have extended for me to act as
this list's liaison person on the new new joint civil society steering
committee, that brings together a number of other civil society networks
such as the IGC, APC, NCSG, Diplo and we hope soon one or two others. 
(Notwithstanding that I would prefer to call it something else, it seems
that "nominating committee" is also not quite right.  Perhaps "joint
high level panel"?  Other ideas?)

In any case, we realise that the group is very /ad hoc/ and that its
legitimacy is weak, and that a microcosm of the debate that several of
you started about the Best Bits interim steering committee could flare
up again about this new joint civil society committee... but can I just
humbly request that if so, that argument takes place in another thread. 
Because this thread is about the nominees that we need to put forward
/today/ for the upcoming high-level meeting in London.

After discussions with the others, in which I put forward the nominees
who had been received support on this list, there is finally a proposal
that the following candidates be put forward:

  * Anriette Esterhuysen
  * Milton Mueller

I am /not/ writing to ask whether you agree with the process by which
these names have been put forward - again, please, due to exigent
circumstances, I ask that we reserve that argument for another thread. 
Neither I am asking for alternative names, because the alternative names
that we received were seriously discussed already (and their
non-inclusion above is no reflection on them).

Rather, I am simply asking whether anyone has /serious/ objections to
the above two names being put forward today.  If you do, please urgently
say so in this thread.

Once again, let me beg that you /don't raise process concerns about the
joint committee in this thread/.  We acknowledge and will deal with
those concerns, but this is not the time or place.  Please only express
concerns, if any, about the two names that the joint committee is
ultimately proposing to put forward.

Please also note that when the nominations are sent on, this will be by
means of a letter, the content of which we are still finalising but
which I will put online as soon as it is ready for optional sign-on
endorsement.  The current draft is online at
http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/hlp-reps.  (I can't guarantee that edits will
go into the final text, as this depends on the other coalitions too -
but I will try.)

Sorry that circumstances don't allow for a more thorough consultation,
and my thanks in advance for your understanding on this point, and for
your forbearance in not raising process issues in this particular thread.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/4965f54d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/4965f54d/attachment.sig>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 28 23:59:14 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:59:14 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Further letter proposed by joint civil society committee
 on composition and role of 1net
Message-ID: <52981F22.2090003@ciroap.org>

In addition to the nomination of two additional civil society
representatives to the High-Level Panel in London, the other members of
the new joint civil society (steering|nominating|foo) committee have
suggested another letter needs to go out today to curb the claims that
the 1net dialogue has been making to having a special role in relation
to the Brazil summit.

Whilst I am personally a little ambivalent about the need for this
letter, I don't think that it would do harm to send it out (with a few
proposed edits that I have already made).  If you would like to look and
propose edits of your own, I'll try to get them incorporated before the
letter goes out.  We can also add it to our own site for sign-on
endorsements, like with the MAG and HLP letters.

http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/1net-reps

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/1f1a86e5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/1f1a86e5/attachment.sig>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Nov 29 00:18:08 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:18:08 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting
 of High-Level Panel
In-Reply-To: <529819BF.2050604@ciroap.org>
References: <529819BF.2050604@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4D7B4EF8-E88F-4F70-9D62-DFDAD8A1C7C3@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for this.

I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered.  

My experience of trying to co-coordinate CS contributions to IG topics for a couple of years during the Tunis phase of WSIS and later involvement with the first couple of years of IGF, this just doesn't sit well with me.

Thank you.

Adam




On Nov 29, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> I'm starting another new thread for visibility, though this too follows on from an old one, "Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received".
> 
> Thanks or the support that many of you have extended for me to act as this list's liaison person on the new new joint civil society steering committee, that brings together a number of other civil society networks such as the IGC, APC, NCSG, Diplo and we hope soon one or two others.  (Notwithstanding that I would prefer to call it something else, it seems that "nominating committee" is also not quite right.  Perhaps "joint high level panel"?  Other ideas?)
> 
> In any case, we realise that the group is very ad hoc and that its legitimacy is weak, and that a microcosm of the debate that several of you started about the Best Bits interim steering committee could flare up again about this new joint civil society committee... but can I just humbly request that if so, that argument takes place in another thread.  Because this thread is about the nominees that we need to put forward today for the upcoming high-level meeting in London.
> 
> After discussions with the others, in which I put forward the nominees who had been received support on this list, there is finally a proposal that the following candidates be put forward:
> 	• Anriette Esterhuysen
> 	• Milton Mueller
> I am not writing to ask whether you agree with the process by which these names have been put forward - again, please, due to exigent circumstances, I ask that we reserve that argument for another thread.  Neither I am asking for alternative names, because the alternative names that we received were seriously discussed already (and their non-inclusion above is no reflection on them).
> 
> Rather, I am simply asking whether anyone has serious objections to the above two names being put forward today.  If you     do, please urgently say so in this thread.
> 
> Once again, let me beg that you don't raise process concerns about the joint committee in this thread.  We acknowledge and will deal with those concerns, but this is not the time or place.  Please only express concerns, if any, about the two names that the joint committee is ultimately proposing to put forward.
> 
> Please also note that when the nominations are sent on, this will be by means of a letter, the content of which we are still finalising but which I will put online as soon as it is ready for optional sign-on endorsement.  The current draft is online at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/hlp-reps.  (I can't guarantee that edits will go into the final text, as this depends on the other coalitions too - but I will try.)
> 
> Sorry that circumstances don't allow for a more thorough consultation, and my thanks in advance for your understanding on this point, and for your forbearance in not raising process issues in this particular thread.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov 29 00:22:23 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:22:23 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting
 of High-Level Panel
In-Reply-To: <4D7B4EF8-E88F-4F70-9D62-DFDAD8A1C7C3@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <529819BF.2050604@ciroap.org> <4D7B4EF8-E88F-4F70-9D62-DFDAD8A1C7C3@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <5298248F.1000703@ciroap.org>

On 29/11/13 13:18, Adam Peake wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered.  
>
> My experience of trying to co-coordinate CS contributions to IG topics for a couple of years during the Tunis phase of WSIS and later involvement with the first couple of years of IGF, this just doesn't sit well with me.

I will address this in the old thread (Re: [bestbits] Formation of a
joint steering Committee - as received).  This thread is not for process
concerns, just for comments on the two names.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/248873f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/248873f3/attachment.sig>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov 29 00:46:51 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:46:51 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>	<0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com>	<29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org> <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill>
Message-ID: <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org>

Moving Adam Peake's question from another thread:

> I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered.

Also cc'ing the governance list, because this is not a Best
Bits-specific issue (the new joint civil society committee is *not* a
Best Bits committee, I've merely been put forward as the liaison from
Best Bits to sit on it).

So who was involved in the selection process?  Everyone who has been
involved in discussions in the networks that are on the steering
committee.  The liaisons from each network have been passing those
discussions on.  Who are those liaisons?  One from each of the civil
society networks that is currently on the joint committee, viz. Sala
(and formerly Norbert) from IGC, Robin Gross from NCSG, myself from Best
Bits, Ginger Paque from Diplo, Anriette from APC and Ian Peter as an
independent chair.

Those members are not set in stone, they just volunteered to fill an
urgent need for a way of nominating civil society representatives to
various processes jointly.  We are going to be suggesting, and opening
for discussion, some criteria for other groups to join.  Other groups
who already expressed interest are Michael Gurstein on behalf of his
community informatics network, and the Internet Rights and Principles
coalition.  But meanwhile, we have put aside further process-tweaking in
order to deal with the urgent task at hand.

As for what criteria and what candidates were considered, there is a
thread on this with discussion back and forth, and it would take some
time to go back and summarize it.  But amongst the candidates considered
were:

  * William Drake
  * Valeria Betancourt
  * Anriette Esterhuysen
  * Vladimir Radunovik
  * Michael Gurstein
  * Thomas Lowenhaupt
  * Grace Githaiga
  * Nnenna Nwakanma
  * Avri Doria
  * Jeanette Hoffman
  * Milton Mueller
  * Stephanie Perrin
  * Tara Taubman
  * Judy Okite
  * Anju Magnal
  * Jovan Kurbalija

The main criterion was how much support existed within the individual
networks that had put forward the names in question.  Also considered
important was that there should be at least one person who can represent
internal ICANN issues, and one person to represent wider issues.  The
candidates should also have been involved with the communities that were
nominating them.

That's about all that I have to say for now.  Ian, as the independent
chair, may wish to address any further questions that you might have.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/706b15ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/706b15ad/attachment.sig>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Nov 29 00:58:08 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:58:08 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>	<0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com>	<29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org> <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill> <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba>

all I would add Adam was that  by the time all names had been gathered from multiple lists we had less than 48 hours to arrive at combined names to meet the deadline – the London meeting is only 2 weeks away. So this called for a pretty quick methodology. (and this at a time when people were travelling from ICANN meetings etc and working through time zones).

I should add that in addition to the two candidates mentioned we will be arguing strongly for Jovan to also be included as an independent facilitator.

Our other option in the time frame, I think, was to do nothing.

I should add that Anriette was not involved in any decision to include her name. That was a unanimous decision from others who participated.

Yes, an imperfect process. But one that gave us good well supported names in a very  limited timeframe.

Ian



From: Jeremy Malcolm 
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 4:46 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received

Moving Adam Peake's question from another thread:


I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered.

Also cc'ing the governance list, because this is not a Best Bits-specific issue (the new joint civil society committee is not a Best Bits committee, I've merely been put forward as the liaison from Best Bits to sit on it).

So who was involved in the selection process?  Everyone who has been involved in discussions in the networks that are on the steering committee.  The liaisons from each network have been passing those discussions on.  Who are those liaisons?  One from each of the civil society networks that is currently on the joint committee, viz. Sala (and formerly Norbert) from IGC, Robin Gross from NCSG, myself from Best Bits, Ginger Paque from Diplo, Anriette from APC and Ian Peter as an independent chair.

Those members are not set in stone, they just volunteered to fill an urgent need for a way of nominating civil society representatives to various processes jointly.  We are going to be suggesting, and opening for discussion, some criteria for other groups to join.  Other groups who already expressed interest are Michael Gurstein on behalf of his community informatics network, and the Internet Rights and Principles coalition.  But meanwhile, we have put aside further process-tweaking in order to deal with the urgent task at hand.

As for what criteria and what candidates were considered, there is a thread on this with discussion back and forth, and it would take some time to go back and summarize it.  But amongst the candidates considered were:

  a.. William Drake 
  b.. Valeria Betancourt 
  c.. Anriette Esterhuysen 
  d.. Vladimir Radunovik 
  e.. Michael Gurstein 
  f.. Thomas Lowenhaupt 
  g.. Grace Githaiga 
  h.. Nnenna Nwakanma 
  i.. Avri Doria 
  j.. Jeanette Hoffman 
  k.. Milton Mueller 
  l.. Stephanie Perrin 
  m.. Tara Taubman 
  n.. Judy Okite 
  o.. Anju Magnal 
  p.. Jovan Kurbalija

The main criterion was how much support existed within the individual networks that had put forward the names in question.  Also considered important was that there should be at least one person who can represent internal ICANN issues, and one person to represent wider issues.  The candidates should also have been involved with the communities that were nominating them.

That's about all that I have to say for now.  Ian, as the independent chair, may wish to address any further questions that you might have.


-- 

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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/7cb20b9b/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov 29 01:44:01 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:44:01 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Rigf_discuss] Fwd: [Rigf_program] Fwd:
 [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [Brazil] NCSG representatives for
 civil society participation on High Level Meeting in London
In-Reply-To: <A451A1FA-B7E7-4694-AB08-BD24AB49F44A@registry.asia>
References: <CADrRf+eVYN8voYY_yEiq2KFKJrR8EgG9S1OOM0p6VKdtvpfKew@mail.gmail.com> <A451A1FA-B7E7-4694-AB08-BD24AB49F44A@registry.asia>
Message-ID: <529837B1.6000208@ciroap.org>

On 29/11/13 14:11, Yannis Li wrote:
> On 28/11/2013 10:00, Sally Costerton wrote:
> > Olivier
> > Just picked this up and I need to correct this. The request from
> > Fadi/Adiel is for two contributors from civil society to serve on the
> > Brazil Meeting Steering Committee which will be one of the four groups
> > that were announced by CGI on Tuesday that will organize the meeting
> > in Brazil next year.  This request came from Adiel on the 1net
> > coordination list and this is the one that has a deadline attached.
> >
> > The meeting in London on Dec 12 and 13 is different. It is a meeting
> > of the Panel members already announced last week and Chaired by Vint
> > Cerf and President Thomas Ilves.
>
> I see that people are mixing the two issues -- and indeed, based on the
> second hand information on the list, I was also mixing the two issues.
> So as you can read: there is NO additional search for the meeting on Dec
> 12 & 13 according to Sally Costerton.

This is a misunderstanding by Sally, then. :-)  We are putting forward
names for the December 12 and 13 meeting not main in response to Fadi's
suggestion, but rather because it is our expectation that the High Level
Panel should be balanced as between the stakeholder groups, and as such
we are entitled to be more evenly represented on the High Level Panel
than we are now, with representatives whom we, rather than ICANN, choose.

> On the issue of the request from Fadi/Adiel for two contributors from
> civil society to serve on the Brazil Meeting Steering Committee, this
> request was made on the 1net coordination list so this is not something
> asked from the NCSG exclusively.

Agreed that that is a separate and equally important issue, and a
separate point that have made is that despite claims to the contrary, it
is now clear that 1net is not to be coordinating stakeholder
representation for the Brazil meeting.  So we will not be nominating
people in response to any call that 1net makes, but rather liaising
directly with the Brazilian organisers in this regard.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/00b84d86/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/00b84d86/attachment.sig>

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Nov 25 16:41:16 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:41:16 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a
 multi-stakeholder environment
In-Reply-To: <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiChMr486H_hnq2mwF+xLZm8-LZGz3_00Ajybc8OVAzpbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba>
 <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com>
 <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com>
 <F2B3441C-7B45-473F-BA38-B335628CA643@gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN55xam9_zNavKFhniy-hC2kieRpt1zqY+OV_cjQ-5=WCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

George
Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand.

The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the members of the steering committees for the conference, and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups.

Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those of us exclusively interested in substantive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees.

In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive issues.

--MM

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM
To: Deirdre Williams
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment

Deirdre, and all,

Thank you, Deirdre.  I take your point that we should consider shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder membership-based discussions.  That is a very good way to phrase it.   (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.)

Where should we have these issue-based discussions?  There have been a number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them.  How can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner?

We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more:

-  the IGC list,
-  the BestBits list,
-  the ISOC policy list, and
-  the new 1Net coordination list.

Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the same posting more than once.  I subscribe to all four of the above.

With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution.  [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the discussion.]  I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for other purposes also.

If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the four lists.

IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do with aspects of Internet governance?  If we can converge on an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more positive discussion of issues.  If the redundancy is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important here.

Comments?  Suggestions? Criticisms?

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:


I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein
Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread
Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment
begun by George Sadowsky.

Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues?
In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us.

Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we  try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues.

Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations.

We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society.

Deirdre

On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com<mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>> wrote:

All,

Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.

<<snip>>


So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you.

First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns.  As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits.

The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize.  Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined.  Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered.

Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood.  At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels.  In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level.  The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them.  That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both.

In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important.

Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas.  A couple of examples illustrate the point.  To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation.  Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos.  So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation.

Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society."  In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds.  These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group.  And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others.  Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed.

An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences.  To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals.

Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group.  We have interactions with government and may work for it.  Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization.  Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet.  Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group.   If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live.  Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do.  This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality,

I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart.  We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind  If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach.

This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet.  Thank you for taking the time to read it.  I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above.  However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful.  The more nuanced discussion can and will come later.

Your comments are welcome.

George



<<trimmed>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/8d56c37e/attachment.htm>

From anne at webfoundation.org  Mon Nov  4 06:46:02 2013
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:46:02 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [OGP] fw URGENT: Call for signatures on
 Surveillance statement
In-Reply-To: <00ca01ced94e$d248b5a0$76da20e0$@gmail.com>
References: <00a101ced715$83e21540$8ba63fc0$@org>
	<527447D0.2010207@eff.org>
	<mvmxmg.vkj0lw@www.webmail.iptelecom.net.ua>
	<5275506A.40505@cippic.ca>
	<00ca01ced94e$d248b5a0$76da20e0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbG1g3PnYPdvpEBYvY1rBsbKiBiF3TRjGL3Gmbax5kUKjA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Michael. Web Foundation was present at the OGP and we initiated this
statement together with Access Info Europe and some other friends in the
RTI and transparency communities. Endorsements are open until 11 November:
http://www.webfoundation.org/2013/11/statement-of-concern-on-disproportionate-surveillance/

We'd already drafted the statement before Aruna Roy's remarks in plenary,
but her intervention gave us a lot more momentum. She asked why governments
are spying, carrying out mass surveillance and passing laws that were
limiting space for civic and democratic action, despite talking at OGP
about building partnerships between civil society and government. Kerry
admitted that NSA surveillance had "in some cases" gone “too far," and was
allowed to happen "on autopilot". Video of the session is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX2RpCvLIYk and news coverage
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/31/john-kerry-some-surveillance-gone-too-far

Best wishes
Anne





On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:12 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> An interesting sign on letter below from our fraternal CS cousins in the
> Open Government Partnership process.
>
>
>
> The sign on letter is I think of particular interest in that it calls for
> transparency around surveillance to be built into national OGP
> plans/commitments. (evidently there was a significant dust-up between
> Indian Right to Information activist Aruna Roy and John Kerry over
> transparency, open government and surveillance as a highlight of the just
> concluded OGP event in London.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* OGP [mailto:ogp-bounces at lists.opengovcanada.ca] *On Behalf Of *Tamir
> Israel
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:20 PM
> *To:* OGP at lists.opengovcanada.ca
> *Subject:* [OGP] fw URGENT: Call for signatures on Surveillance statement
>
>
>
> Please see the request below for a call for signatories for a statement to
> the OGP on the need for greater transparency in surveillance.
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> > Subject:      FW: URGENT: Call for signatures on Surveillance
>
> > statement
>
> > Date:        Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:17:38 +0100
>
> >  From:       Helen Darbishire <helen at access-info.org> <helen at access-info.org>
>
> > CC:   'Anne Jellema' <anne at webfoundation.org> <anne at webfoundation.org>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > * *
>
> >
>
> > I am writing from the Open Government Partnership meeting in London to
>
> > urge you to sign a statement that civil society is issuing about the
>
> > need for greater transparency around Surveillance.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Signatures thus far are below. Please send your signatures to me and to
>
> > Anne Jellema of the Web Foundation (anne at webfoundation.org
>
> > <mailto:anne at webfoundation.org> <anne at webfoundation.org>).
>
> >
>
> >  ****Timing**: we will issue the statement at the OGP meeting today but will
>
> > continue to collect signatures through next week, with final date being
>
> > Monday 11 November.  ****Please sign today if you can**!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thank you in advance!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Helen
>
> >
>
> > *----------------------------------------------*
>
> >
>
> > Helen Darbishire
>
> >
>
> > *Executive Director, Access Info Europe <http://www.access-info.org/> <http://www.access-info.org/>*
>
> >
>
> > Mobile + 34 667 685 319
>
> >
>
> > Skype: helen_darbishire
>
> >
>
> > Twitter @helen_access
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -------//-------//---------//-------//-----
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Statement of Concern on Disproportionate Surveillance
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We, the undersigned civil society organisations, affirm our deep
>
> > commitment to the goals of the Open Government Partnership, which in its
>
> > declaration endorsed "more transparent, accountable, responsive and
>
> > effective government" founded on the principles of the Universal
>
> > Declaration of Human Rights.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We join other civil society organisations, human rights groups,
>
> > academics and ordinary citizens in expressing our grave concern over
>
> > allegations that governments around the world, including many OGP
>
> > members, have been routinely intercepting and retaining the private
>
> > communications of entire populations, in secret, without warrants and
>
> > with little or no meaningful oversight. Such practices allegedly include
>
> > the routine exchange of "foreign" surveillance data in order to evade
>
> > domestic laws that restrict governments' ability to spy on their own
>
> > citizens.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Such practices erode the checks and balances on which accountability
>
> > depends, and have a deeply chilling effect on freedom of expression,
>
> > information and association, without which the ideals of open government
>
> > have no meaning.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > As Brazil's President, Dilma Rousseff, recently said at the United
>
> > Nations, "In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true
>
> > freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Activities that restrict the right to privacy, including communications
>
> > surveillance, can only be justified when they are prescribed by law, are
>
> > necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and are proportionate to the aim
>
> > pursued.# Without firm legislative and judicial checks on the
>
> > surveillance powers of the executive branch, and robust protections for
>
> > the media and public interest whistleblowers, abuses can and will occur.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We call on all OGP member governments to:
>
> >
>
> >  recognise the need to update understandings of existing privacy and
>
> > human rights law to reflect modern surveillance technologies and
>
> > techniques.
>
> >
>
> >  commit in their OGP Action Plans to complete by October 2014 a review
>
> > of national laws, with the aim of defining reforms needed to regulate
>
> > necessary, legitimate and proportional State involvement in
>
> > communications surveillance; to guarantee freedom of the press; and to
>
> > protect whistleblowers who lawfully reveal abuses of state power.
>
> >
>
> >  commit in their OGP Action Plans to transparency on the mechanisms for
>
> > surveillance, on exports of surveillance technologies, aid directed
>
> > towards implementation of surveillance technologies, and agreements to
>
> > share citizen data among states.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > SIGNED:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Access Info Europe
>
> >
>
> > Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre, Sri Lanka
>
> >
>
> > Association EPAS, Romania
>
> >
>
> > Center for Independent Journalism, Romania
>
> >
>
> > ****Centre for Law and Democracy, USA**
>
> >
>
> > ****Center for Public Interest Advocacy, Bosnia Herzegovina**
>
> >
>
> > Independent Journalism Center, Moldova
>
> >
>
> > Freedom of Information Center, Armenia
>
> >
>
> > Freedom of Information Forum, Austria (FOIAustria)
>
> >
>
> > Fundar, Center for Research and Analysis, Mexico
>
> >
>
> > GESOC, Mexico
>
> >
>
> > IEEPP, Nicaragua
>
> >
>
> > Media Rights Agenda, Nigeria
>
> >
>
> > MKSS, India
>
> >
>
> > NATO Watch, UK
>
> >
>
> > Obong Denis Udo-Inyang Foundation,Nigeria
>
> >
>
> > Open Knowledge Foundation
>
> >
>
> > Open Rights Group, UK
>
> >
>
> > Privacy and Access Council of Canada  Conseil du Canada de lAccХs et
>
> > la vie PrivИe
>
> >
>
> > PROETICA PERU
>
> >
>
> > Transparency International Armenia
>
> >
>
> > World Wide Web Foundation
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ****Individuals**
>
> >
>
> > Aruna Roy
>
> >
>
> > Tim Berners-Lee
>
> >
>
> > Vinod Rai, Former Comptroller and Auditor General, India
>
> >
>
> > David Eaves
>
> >
>
> > Dwight E. Hines, Ph.D
>
> >
>
> > Nikhil Dey
>
> >
>
> > Petru Botnaru, freelance journalist, Moldova
>
> >
>
> > Satbir Singh, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Co-Chair, South
>
> > Asian Right to Information Advocates Network
>
> >
>
> > Shankar Singh
>
> >
>
> > Sowmya Kidambi
>
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Anne Jellema
Chief Executive Officer
Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
Skype anne.jellema
@afjellema

World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/a9d1d416/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Nov 29 06:10:59 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:40:59 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Further letter proposed by joint civil society
 committee on composition and role of 1net
In-Reply-To: <52981F22.2090003@ciroap.org>
References: <52981F22.2090003@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBsO7Trq93FRnmqv0MAzmKDttXtuoTD01YZPmrWGKGX5Q@mail.gmail.com>

While this letter has some value, I think we make a big mistake by mixing
up issues about 1net as such (who makes decisions) with issues about the
Brazil meeting, as this letter seems to do. Which are you aiming for
exactly?

If it is questions about 1net as such that this letter seeks to address, I
think these can be handled in a different, and more friendly way for now.
Why not simply raise them in individual capacity on the 1net coordination
list, rather than writing something as antagonistic as this at this early
point in time?

And if it is issues about the Brazil meeting it seeks to address, why not
simply inform 1net about our recent letter of affirmation of the liaisons,
and possibly request for a clarification as to why earlier it was claimed
all representation should go through 1net?

Beyond the latter, we don't really need anything from 1net on this issue,
as we have not considered that network as our main representative or
go-between for questions relating to the Brazil process in any case - since
Bali, we have agreed that that role will be played by our liaisons. I feel
this letter only confuses messaging on this issue.

At least as it stands now, not a good idea at all to send this I feel, and
as long as the purpose of this letter isn't clear to me, I can't edit it
either.

Best,
Anja



On 29 November 2013 10:29, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  In addition to the nomination of two additional civil society
> representatives to the High-Level Panel in London, the other members of the
> new joint civil society (steering|nominating|foo) committee have suggested
> another letter needs to go out today to curb the claims that the 1net
> dialogue has been making to having a special role in relation to the Brazil
> summit.
>
> Whilst I am personally a little ambivalent about the need for this letter,
> I don't think that it would do harm to send it out (with a few proposed
> edits that I have already made).  If you would like to look and propose
> edits of your own, I'll try to get them incorporated before the letter goes
> out.  We can also add it to our own site for sign-on endorsements, like
> with the MAG and HLP letters.
>
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/1net-reps
>
> --
>
>
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/a48df8ca/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Fri Nov 29 06:21:30 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:21:30 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Further letter proposed by joint civil society
 committee on composition and role of 1net
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBsO7Trq93FRnmqv0MAzmKDttXtuoTD01YZPmrWGKGX5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52981F22.2090003@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHBsO7Trq93FRnmqv0MAzmKDttXtuoTD01YZPmrWGKGX5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <529878BA.7020102@cdt.org>

+ 1
On 29/11/2013 11:10, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> While this letter has some value, I think we make a big mistake by 
> mixing up issues about 1net as such (who makes decisions) with issues 
> about the Brazil meeting, as this letter seems to do. Which are you 
> aiming for exactly?
>
> If it is questions about 1net as such that this letter seeks to 
> address, I think these can be handled in a different, and more 
> friendly way for now. Why not simply raise them in individual capacity 
> on the 1net coordination list, rather than writing something as 
> antagonistic as this at this early point in time?
>
> And if it is issues about the Brazil meeting it seeks to address, why 
> not simply inform 1net about our recent letter of affirmation of the 
> liaisons, and possibly request for a clarification as to why earlier 
> it was claimed all representation should go through 1net?
>
> Beyond the latter, we don't really need anything from 1net on this 
> issue, as we have not considered that network as our main 
> representative or go-between for questions relating to the Brazil 
> process in any case - since Bali, we have agreed that that role will 
> be played by our liaisons. I feel this letter only confuses messaging 
> on this issue.
>
> At least as it stands now, not a good idea at all to send this I feel, 
> and as long as the purpose of this letter isn't clear to me, I can't 
> edit it either.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> On 29 November 2013 10:29, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>     In addition to the nomination of two additional civil society
>     representatives to the High-Level Panel in London, the other
>     members of the new joint civil society (steering|nominating|foo)
>     committee have suggested another letter needs to go out today to
>     curb the claims that the 1net dialogue has been making to having a
>     special role in relation to the Brazil summit.
>
>     Whilst I am personally a little ambivalent about the need for this
>     letter, I don't think that it would do harm to send it out (with a
>     few proposed edits that I have already made).  If you would like
>     to look and propose edits of your own, I'll try to get them
>     incorporated before the letter goes out.  We can also add it to
>     our own site for sign-on endorsements, like with the MAG and HLP
>     letters.
>
>     http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/1net-reps
>
>     -- 
>
>     *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
>
>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>     knowledge hub |
>     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
>     @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.
>
>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/961c9762/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Fri Nov 29 06:44:26 2013
From: avri at acm.org (avri)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:44:26 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Further letter proposed by joint civil society
 committee on composition and role of 1net
Message-ID: <6o9b23ifwo1xt3y62dy0c2sc.1385725466166@email.android.com>

Anja's analysis makes sense to me.


avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> 
Date: 11/29/2013  06:21  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>,"&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Further letter proposed by joint civil society committee on composition and role of 1net 
 
+ 1
On 29/11/2013 11:10, Anja Kovacs wrote:
While this letter has some value, I think we make a big mistake by mixing up issues about 1net as such (who makes decisions) with issues about the Brazil meeting, as this letter seems to do. Which are you aiming for exactly? 

If it is questions about 1net as such that this letter seeks to address, I think these can be handled in a different, and more friendly way for now. Why not simply raise them in individual capacity on the 1net coordination list, rather than writing something as antagonistic as this at this early point in time? 

And if it is issues about the Brazil meeting it seeks to address, why not simply inform 1net about our recent letter of affirmation of the liaisons, and possibly request for a           clarification as to why earlier it was claimed all representation should go through 1net? 

Beyond the latter, we don't really need anything from 1net on this issue, as we have not considered that network as our main representative or go-between for questions relating to the Brazil process in any case - since Bali, we have agreed that that role will be played by our liaisons. I feel this letter only confuses messaging on this issue. 

At least as it stands now, not a good idea at all to send this I feel, and as long as the purpose of this letter isn't clear to me, I can't edit it either.

Best,
Anja



On 29 November 2013 10:29, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>           wrote:
In addition to the nomination of two additional civil society representatives to the High-Level Panel in London, the other members of the new joint civil society (steering|nominating|foo) committee have suggested another letter needs to go out today to curb the claims that the 1net dialogue has been making to having a special role in relation to the Brazil summit.

Whilst I am personally a little ambivalent about the need for this letter, I don't think that it would do harm to send it out (with a few proposed edits that I have already made).  If you would like to look and propose edits of your own, I'll try to get them incorporated before the letter goes out.  We can also add it to our own site for sign-on endorsements, like with the MAG and HLP letters.

http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/1net-reps

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/99fc4645/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov 29 06:49:52 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:49:52 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Further letter proposed by joint civil society
 committee on composition and role of 1net
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBsO7Trq93FRnmqv0MAzmKDttXtuoTD01YZPmrWGKGX5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52981F22.2090003@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHBsO7Trq93FRnmqv0MAzmKDttXtuoTD01YZPmrWGKGX5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96E57CCE-0C6F-4D84-81C3-9EDF41428EBF@ciroap.org>

On 29 Nov 2013, at 7:10 pm, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> While this letter has some value, I think we make a big mistake by mixing up issues about 1net as such (who makes decisions) with issues about the Brazil meeting, as this letter seems to do. Which are you aiming for exactly? 
> 
> If it is questions about 1net as such that this letter seeks to address, I think these can be handled in a different, and more friendly way for now. Why not simply raise them in individual capacity on the 1net coordination list, rather than writing something as antagonistic as this at this early point in time? 
> 
> And if it is issues about the Brazil meeting it seeks to address, why not simply inform 1net about our recent letter of affirmation of the liaisons, and possibly request for a clarification as to why earlier it was claimed all representation should go through 1net? 
> 
> Beyond the latter, we don't really need anything from 1net on this issue, as we have not considered that network as our main representative or go-between for questions relating to the Brazil process in any case - since Bali, we have agreed that that role will be played by our liaisons. I feel this letter only confuses messaging on this issue. 
> 
> At least as it stands now, not a good idea at all to send this I feel, and as long as the purpose of this letter isn't clear to me, I can't edit it either.


As I suggested in my first mail, I had my own reservations about this letter, as I wasn't sure that it continued to serve much of a useful purpose after it was clarified that CGI.br, and not 1net, will be the interface between the organisers and the stakeholders.  Whilst I hadn't wanted to stand in the way if other people felt strongly about sending it - and I didn't think it would do much harm - in light of your comments I will suggest the joint committee reconsider the need for this letter.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/68651e2d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/68651e2d/attachment.sig>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Fri Nov 29 06:59:32 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:59:32 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Further letter proposed by joint civil society
 committee on composition and role of 1net
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBsO7Trq93FRnmqv0MAzmKDttXtuoTD01YZPmrWGKGX5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52981F22.2090003@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHBsO7Trq93FRnmqv0MAzmKDttXtuoTD01YZPmrWGKGX5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <529881A4.5090507@cafonso.ca>

Anja and all,

As you know, CGI.br is now officially the entity in BR in charge of
organizing the April meeting. A specific BR organizing group (which will
meet for the first time this coming week) has been chosen by consensus
in the last meeting of CGI.br, composed of board members of all sectors
-- I am part of it.

In our (CGI.br) press release we strove to avoid any indication of
exclusivity for the channels to address the organizing group --
otherwise this would be obviously against the efforts to ensure
pluriparticipation.

This *does not* mean we are discrediting the 1Net platform or group --
to the contrary. Anyone is obviously free to choose through which group,
movement or platform they want to reach the BR organizing group. If CS
chooses to ascertain its presence via 1Net, fine with us.

A specific email has been created to reach the BR organizing group
(which will automatically copy the incoming message to all of us):

brmeeting at cgi.br

My *personal* view at this point is that CS should concentrate on ways
to participate in the first two committees (High-Level Multistakeholder
Committee, and Executive Multistakeholder Committee), as the logistics
committee will basically be handled by our team with long-time expertise
in organizing international meetings in BR (ICANN meetings, the IGF
2007, W3C in BR etc, to name a few), and the meeting's GAC is, well, a
GAC :)

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 11/29/2013 09:10 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> While this letter has some value, I think we make a big mistake by
> mixing up issues about 1net as such (who makes decisions) with issues
> about the Brazil meeting, as this letter seems to do. Which are you
> aiming for exactly?
> 
> If it is questions about 1net as such that this letter seeks to address,
> I think these can be handled in a different, and more friendly way for
> now. Why not simply raise them in individual capacity on the 1net
> coordination list, rather than writing something as antagonistic as this
> at this early point in time?
> 
> And if it is issues about the Brazil meeting it seeks to address, why
> not simply inform 1net about our recent letter of affirmation of the
> liaisons, and possibly request for a clarification as to why earlier it
> was claimed all representation should go through 1net?
> 
> Beyond the latter, we don't really need anything from 1net on this
> issue, as we have not considered that network as our main representative
> or go-between for questions relating to the Brazil process in any case -
> since Bali, we have agreed that that role will be played by our
> liaisons. I feel this letter only confuses messaging on this issue.
> 
> At least as it stands now, not a good idea at all to send this I feel,
> and as long as the purpose of this letter isn't clear to me, I can't
> edit it either.
> 
> Best,
> Anja
> 
> 
> 
> On 29 November 2013 10:29, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> 
>     In addition to the nomination of two additional civil society
>     representatives to the High-Level Panel in London, the other members
>     of the new joint civil society (steering|nominating|foo) committee
>     have suggested another letter needs to go out today to curb the
>     claims that the 1net dialogue has been making to having a special
>     role in relation to the Brazil summit.
> 
>     Whilst I am personally a little ambivalent about the need for this
>     letter, I don't think that it would do harm to send it out (with a
>     few proposed edits that I have already made).  If you would like to
>     look and propose edits of your own, I'll try to get them
>     incorporated before the letter goes out.  We can also add it to our
>     own site for sign-on endorsements, like with the MAG and HLP letters.
> 
>     http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/1net-reps
> 
>     -- 
> 
>     *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
> 
>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>     knowledge hub |
>     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
>     @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.
> 
>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Nov 29 07:08:05 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:38:05 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting
 of High-Level Panel
In-Reply-To: <5298248F.1000703@ciroap.org>
References: <529819BF.2050604@ciroap.org>
	<4D7B4EF8-E88F-4F70-9D62-DFDAD8A1C7C3@glocom.ac.jp>
	<5298248F.1000703@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBuPTkB+Uuwj4-OWKG+-byCuBca8jJDNkQTu4ZKCkLxUw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The two nominees have my full support, but again, I have considerable
issues with the letter in which their nomination is supposed to be shared
with ICANN - in fact so much so that I was wondering whether this was
written in jest, to see if someone would pick up on these issues?

In any case, just in case it wasn't in jest: I do not remember anyone ever
claiming that the panel was a 1net panel. It was very clear that it emerged
out of ICANN, and though some who are involved in 1net might have been
consulted on it to a greater extent than others, that doesn't change this
fundamental fact. The letter thus confuses issues, and by doing so, is
unnecessarily antagonistic. More importantly, it therefore also gives the
panel a weight that not all on this list (and on the IGC list, as far as I
could see) feel it deserves - in fact, some are quite clear it does not,
and the panel thus should not be sanctified in ways that have not been
agreed on.

There are also a few strange terms being used in the letter. As far as I
know, the panel was never named the "CEO's High Level Panel". Also, if
someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about
"multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time
I hear about this.

In its current form, I find it quite unacceptable to send this.

My 2 paise,
Anja




On 29 November 2013 10:52, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  On 29/11/13 13:18, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered.
>
> My experience of trying to co-coordinate CS contributions to IG topics for a couple of years during the Tunis phase of WSIS and later involvement with the first couple of years of IGF, this just doesn't sit well with me.
>
>
> I will address this in the old thread (Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint
> steering Committee - as received).  This thread is not for process
> concerns, just for comments on the two names.
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/146d3440/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Nov 29 07:18:06 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:48:06 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Further letter proposed by joint civil society
 committee on composition and role of 1net
In-Reply-To: <529881A4.5090507@cafonso.ca>
References: <52981F22.2090003@ciroap.org>
	<CAJqNAHBsO7Trq93FRnmqv0MAzmKDttXtuoTD01YZPmrWGKGX5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<529881A4.5090507@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHCmufWdyYrMhrLvCE8BKrTSROt2F8P74W+TvMiotkQ4ug@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the clarification, Carlos.

CS had already decided to engage with the Brazilian government directly,
and for that reason had appointed its four liaisons (including yourself!).
I think we were all most pleased when it was affirmed in the press release
you mention in your message that such direct engagement would indeed be
possible.

While it has thus already been confirmed that we will not like to use 1net
as a go-between to select civil society representation etc, I would like to
add to your message that nothing stops civil society from nevertheless
discussing with/on 1net the substantive issues that the conference will
address. In fact, I think it would be very valuable if we do so.

Best,
Anja




On 29 November 2013 17:29, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Anja and all,
>
> As you know, CGI.br is now officially the entity in BR in charge of
> organizing the April meeting. A specific BR organizing group (which will
> meet for the first time this coming week) has been chosen by consensus
> in the last meeting of CGI.br, composed of board members of all sectors
> -- I am part of it.
>
> In our (CGI.br) press release we strove to avoid any indication of
> exclusivity for the channels to address the organizing group --
> otherwise this would be obviously against the efforts to ensure
> pluriparticipation.
>
> This *does not* mean we are discrediting the 1Net platform or group --
> to the contrary. Anyone is obviously free to choose through which group,
> movement or platform they want to reach the BR organizing group. If CS
> chooses to ascertain its presence via 1Net, fine with us.
>
> A specific email has been created to reach the BR organizing group
> (which will automatically copy the incoming message to all of us):
>
> brmeeting at cgi.br
>
> My *personal* view at this point is that CS should concentrate on ways
> to participate in the first two committees (High-Level Multistakeholder
> Committee, and Executive Multistakeholder Committee), as the logistics
> committee will basically be handled by our team with long-time expertise
> in organizing international meetings in BR (ICANN meetings, the IGF
> 2007, W3C in BR etc, to name a few), and the meeting's GAC is, well, a
> GAC :)
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/29/2013 09:10 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> > While this letter has some value, I think we make a big mistake by
> > mixing up issues about 1net as such (who makes decisions) with issues
> > about the Brazil meeting, as this letter seems to do. Which are you
> > aiming for exactly?
> >
> > If it is questions about 1net as such that this letter seeks to address,
> > I think these can be handled in a different, and more friendly way for
> > now. Why not simply raise them in individual capacity on the 1net
> > coordination list, rather than writing something as antagonistic as this
> > at this early point in time?
> >
> > And if it is issues about the Brazil meeting it seeks to address, why
> > not simply inform 1net about our recent letter of affirmation of the
> > liaisons, and possibly request for a clarification as to why earlier it
> > was claimed all representation should go through 1net?
> >
> > Beyond the latter, we don't really need anything from 1net on this
> > issue, as we have not considered that network as our main representative
> > or go-between for questions relating to the Brazil process in any case -
> > since Bali, we have agreed that that role will be played by our
> > liaisons. I feel this letter only confuses messaging on this issue.
> >
> > At least as it stands now, not a good idea at all to send this I feel,
> > and as long as the purpose of this letter isn't clear to me, I can't
> > edit it either.
> >
> > Best,
> > Anja
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 November 2013 10:29, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
> > <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     In addition to the nomination of two additional civil society
> >     representatives to the High-Level Panel in London, the other members
> >     of the new joint civil society (steering|nominating|foo) committee
> >     have suggested another letter needs to go out today to curb the
> >     claims that the 1net dialogue has been making to having a special
> >     role in relation to the Brazil summit.
> >
> >     Whilst I am personally a little ambivalent about the need for this
> >     letter, I don't think that it would do harm to send it out (with a
> >     few proposed edits that I have already made).  If you would like to
> >     look and propose edits of your own, I'll try to get them
> >     incorporated before the letter goes out.  We can also add it to our
> >     own site for sign-on endorsements, like with the MAG and HLP letters.
> >
> >     http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/1net-reps
> >
> >     --
> >
> >     *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
> >
> >     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
> >     knowledge hub |
> >     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >
> >     @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.
> >
> >     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> >     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> >     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >
> >
> >     ____________________________________________________________
> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >.
> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
> > The Internet Democracy Project
> >
> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> > www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>



-- 
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/20131129/2532bbc3/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Nov 29 07:25:19 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:55:19 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
 received
In-Reply-To: <271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com>
	<0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com>
	<29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org>
	<20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill>
	<52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org>
	<271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHATBWox6GafOhF6R_-1ZJa-Orpvc3HCeRPRKSqFrm5fiQ@mail.gmail.com>

To avoid confusion, can we maybe rename the Joint Steering Committee into
the Joint Coordination Committee? Seems to fit more closely with its
purpose.

And I agree that in the future it would be good if we could use a Joint Nom
Com procedure of the kind earlier suggested by Norbert - though I recognise
that timelines madie it impossible to do so in this occasion.

Best,
Anja

Thoug


On 29 November 2013 11:28, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   all I would add Adam was that  by the time all names had been gathered
> from multiple lists we had less than 48 hours to arrive at combined names
> to meet the deadline – the London meeting is only 2 weeks away. So this
> called for a pretty quick methodology. (and this at a time when people were
> travelling from ICANN meetings etc and working through time zones).
>
> I should add that in addition to the two candidates mentioned we will be
> arguing strongly for Jovan to also be included as an independent
> facilitator.
>
> Our other option in the time frame, I think, was to do nothing.
>
> I should add that Anriette was not involved in any decision to include her
> name. That was a unanimous decision from others who participated.
>
> Yes, an imperfect process. But one that gave us good well supported names
> in a very  limited timeframe.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>  *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 4:46 PM
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as
> received
>
> Moving Adam Peake's question from another thread:
>
> I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered.
>
>
> Also cc'ing the governance list, because this is not a Best Bits-specific
> issue (the new joint civil society committee is *not* a Best Bits
> committee, I've merely been put forward as the liaison from Best Bits to
> sit on it).
>
> So who was involved in the selection process?  Everyone who has been
> involved in discussions in the networks that are on the steering
> committee.  The liaisons from each network have been passing those
> discussions on.  Who are those liaisons?  One from each of the civil
> society networks that is currently on the joint committee, viz. Sala (and
> formerly Norbert) from IGC, Robin Gross from NCSG, myself from Best Bits,
> Ginger Paque from Diplo, Anriette from APC and Ian Peter as an independent
> chair.
>
> Those members are not set in stone, they just volunteered to fill an
> urgent need for a way of nominating civil society representatives to
> various processes jointly.  We are going to be suggesting, and opening for
> discussion, some criteria for other groups to join.  Other groups who
> already expressed interest are Michael Gurstein on behalf of his community
> informatics network, and the Internet Rights and Principles coalition.  But
> meanwhile, we have put aside further process-tweaking in order to deal with
> the urgent task at hand.
>
> As for what criteria and what candidates were considered, there is a
> thread on this with discussion back and forth, and it would take some time
> to go back and summarize it.  But amongst the candidates considered were:
>
>    - William Drake
>    - Valeria Betancourt
>    - Anriette Esterhuysen
>    - Vladimir Radunovik
>    - Michael Gurstein
>    - Thomas Lowenhaupt
>    - Grace Githaiga
>    - Nnenna Nwakanma
>    - Avri Doria
>    - Jeanette Hoffman
>    - Milton Mueller
>    - Stephanie Perrin
>    - Tara Taubman
>    - Judy Okite
>    - Anju Magnal
>    - Jovan Kurbalija
>
> The main criterion was how much support existed within the individual
> networks that had put forward the names in question.  Also considered
> important was that there should be at least one person who can represent
> internal ICANN issues, and one person to represent wider issues.  The
> candidates should also have been involved with the communities that were
> nominating them.
>
> That's about all that I have to say for now.  Ian, as the independent
> chair, may wish to address any further questions that you might have.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/f274fd5f/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov 29 07:45:45 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:45:45 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering
 Committee - as received
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHATBWox6GafOhF6R_-1ZJa-Orpvc3HCeRPRKSqFrm5fiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com> <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com> <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org> <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill> <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org> <271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba> <CAJqNAHATBWox6GafOhF6R_-1ZJa-Orpvc3HCeRPRKSqFrm5fiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0F7E8A8A-E7F8-4254-B0FD-735C7479C3A2@ciroap.org>

On 29 Nov 2013, at 8:25 pm, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> To avoid confusion, can we maybe rename the Joint Steering Committee into the Joint Coordination Committee? Seems to fit more closely with its purpose. 


I still like nominating committee, but coordination committee is also fine.  Also we should maybe refocus it on making joint nominations, rather than writing letters.  Unlike the joint nominations, writing joint letters is not a gap that needed filling.  We can, and do, already do that without a new joint committee - indeed the Best Bits platform has already been used for exactly that sort of thing.

Clearly the two letters that I passed on this morning were a bit off.  Due to my self-imposed email exile which finished last night they were already finalised when I first saw them, and not wanting to rock the boat when there was pressure to issue them immediately, I only suggested one or two tweaks.  However I had picked up the same points as you and agree with them... we should not send them as they are.

Ian is now offline until the morning and has asked that the letters go out as-is, but clearly this isn't wise and I'm going to try to touch base with the others and suggest we hold off, at least on the letters if not on passing on the candidates' names.  If the committee does suggest letters in the future, this should be done through one of the existing networks with a proper and inclusive consultative process of an adequate duration.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/1dfb7836/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/1dfb7836/attachment.sig>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Fri Nov 29 08:20:37 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:20:37 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Further letter proposed by joint civil society
 committee on composition and role of 1net
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCmufWdyYrMhrLvCE8BKrTSROt2F8P74W+TvMiotkQ4ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52981F22.2090003@ciroap.org>	<CAJqNAHBsO7Trq93FRnmqv0MAzmKDttXtuoTD01YZPmrWGKGX5Q@mail.gmail.com>	<529881A4.5090507@cafonso.ca> <CAJqNAHCmufWdyYrMhrLvCE8BKrTSROt2F8P74W+TvMiotkQ4ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <529894A5.40509@cafonso.ca>

Yes, precisely dear Anja.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 11/29/2013 10:18 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, Carlos.
[...]
> While it has thus already been confirmed that we will not like to use
> 1net as a go-between to select civil society representation etc, I would
> like to add to your message that nothing stops civil society from
> nevertheless discussing with/on 1net the substantive issues that the
> conference will address. In fact, I think it would be very valuable if
> we do so.
> 
> Best,
> Anja

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Nov  4 11:47:30 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:47:30 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com>

Michael et al,

Just want to report back on the activities on the i-coordination list, as
asked by Michael.
Some of those on the "i-coordination" list are setting November 11th as the
deadline to publish this concept note. Others think this deadline should
not be the real one to pressure this group to publish the statement.
For instance, Joseph Alhadeff, from Oracle,  is calling for the group to
set a process, before
moving on content proposals. I attach his proposal that has been circulated
one hour
ago. Nobody has replied yet.
Joana is on vacation currently - but she is checking emails from time to
time. I think Laura is
coming back from vacation now and CA is coming back from the LACNIC meeting
and may have more news.
The Brazilian government has not yet reached to us, but we have sent a
short
follow-up asking how things are moving and if we should set a call or
something.
So, no news on that front.
Folks who do not have english as theirs first language prefer coalition to
dialogue, so that is a
third avenue of debate in that list.
Nobody on that list has specific comment on the suggestions we have sent
them so far. (the general
ones Joana pointed in her first email).
So, I am reaching out to check if this group as new and specific comments
to both documents.
We could set a date for comments and I consolidate what we get in this list
and send back to them.
Would that work? Does anybody else have another suggestion?
Should we move this forward in parallel to the representativeness
discussion?
I put my name forward to stay in a liaison position both on the side of the
Br government
as on the side of the iStart coalition/dialogue if we wish to continue on
that front.
I attach a version of the "DIGE" document with some quick suggestions I've
made.
Should I put this document in a google drive, in order to collect your
comments/suggestions?
How could we best deal with this editing process?
Looking forward to your comments and suggestions,
Best,

Carolina






On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Joana and all,
>
>
>
> Please note that this following clause from the statement you forwarded,
> is highly exclusive depending on how/who is interpreting it… This needs to
> be further clarified, defined or eliminated IMHO.
>
>
>
> *Contributors to the Dialogue believe that Internet Governance is best
> done through multi-stakeholder means - that is, in ways which incorporate
> the views, and seek the agreement, of all those involved in the evolution
> and development of the Internet*
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Joana Varon
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:34 AM
> *To:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> *Subject:* [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
> I*coalition/dialogue debates
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Hi.
>
> While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list
> still remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on in
> the very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi
> and I* representatives, which I have reported a few days ago. Carlos,
> Carolina and Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also, there are
> others BB subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may
> want to weigh in.
>
> I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that
> meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the
> meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus
> Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil
> society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the
> report, that meeting took a different direction and was focused on building
> the "coalition". So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the
> issue of representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS
> participation beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage.
>
> *Summary*
>
> After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list (
> i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept
> note and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it
> comprises the following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon,
> cisco, cra, auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann
> (2), arin (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc.
>
> 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the
> difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the term
> "coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue
> for the Evolution of Internet Governance
>
> 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel,
> from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name, people got
> mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are marked in the
> attachment as well.
>
> Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no government
> or representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any extent. I've
> also sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming events were only
> events from the technical communities and there is no language on human
> rights in the text, just on business and innovation. No replies here
> received on these issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and
> is open for our inputs.
>
> 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a
> thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim
> steering committee (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as
> who were at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respective
> "stakeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that
> the list is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from
> business community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation
> between the large group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a
> subset of it that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process."
>
> It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee which
> raises questions about the composition of the group (until now there is no
> balance in terms of number of representatives from each stakeholder group).
> This proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by oracle about
> representativeness.
>
> In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:
>
> >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue?
>
> >> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazilian
> summit? ( There is no governments or international organizations in the
> concept note. Carolina and I made that point a few days ago, but it was not
> heard until now)
>
> >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?
>
> Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our previous
> thread about the first report. Another report, about our the meeting with
> the Brazilian gov is coming soon.
>
> If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a) one
> regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian
> government) + the other trying to reach a common ground with the Dialogue.
> Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and
> comprehensive way.
>
> all the best
>
> joana
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/60f1d7f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Initial concepts and process requirements for the___DIALOGUE.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 30208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/60f1d7f1/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIGE-gs-cr.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 43008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/60f1d7f1/attachment-0001.doc>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Fri Nov 29 08:20:54 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:20:54 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering
 Committee - as received
In-Reply-To: <0F7E8A8A-E7F8-4254-B0FD-735C7479C3A2@ciroap.org>
References: <CADFgh10gFBr85nX396PyCECiG89t0NqjBymh+Ht2ou__zLxDww@mail.gmail.com> <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com> <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org> <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill> <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org> <271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba> <CAJqNAHATBWox6GafOhF6R_-1ZJa-Orpvc3HCeRPRKSqFrm5fiQ@mail.gmail.com> <0F7E8A8A-E7F8-4254-B0FD-735C7479C3A2@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <529894B6.1020803@gold.ac.uk>

HI all

I agree with Jeremy about the need for adequate consultation time for 
future nomination processes that affect a range of networks. I think we 
have all taken this on board given the convergence of issues to organize 
around the last weeks.

Forming a joint Coordination Committee for future IGF/MAG or the Brazil 
Meeting sorts of representation is great so long as a range of networks 
are represented: So far we have IGC, BB, Diplo, IRP who have all been 
active so far and should all have their rep in this new formation. And 
if there are others to include we need to ask them before things get too 
rushed.

It implies another list (gulp), and another working group that overlaps 
several lists. But for this specific task of ensuring a broad and rich 
based of CS candidates on these various committees, which may or may 
note include letter-writing, joining forces here is a good move.

I will take this to the IRP SC as we need to consider who can be our 
representative there once it takes shape. I assume other networks want 
to do the same.

Will report back as soon as poss.

best
MF


On 29/11/2013 12:45, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2013, at 8:25 pm, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
>> To avoid confusion, can we maybe rename the Joint Steering Committee 
>> into the Joint Coordination Committee? Seems to fit more closely with 
>> its purpose.
>
> I still like nominating committee, but coordination committee is also 
> fine.  Also we should maybe refocus it on making joint nominations, 
> rather than writing letters.  Unlike the joint nominations, writing 
> joint letters is not a gap that needed filling.  We can, and do, 
> already do that without a new joint committee - indeed the Best Bits 
> platform has already been used for exactly that sort of thing.
>
> Clearly the two letters that I passed on this morning were a bit off. 
>  Due to my self-imposed email exile which finished last night they 
> were already finalised when I first saw them, and not wanting to rock 
> the boat when there was pressure to issue them immediately, I only 
> suggested one or two tweaks.  However I had picked up the same points 
> as you and agree with them... we should not send them as they are.
>
> Ian is now offline until the morning and has asked that the letters go 
> out as-is, but clearly this isn't wise and I'm going to try to touch 
> base with the others and suggest we hold off, at least on the letters 
> if not on passing on the candidates' names.  If the committee does 
> suggest letters in the future, this should be done through one of the 
> existing networks with a proper and inclusive consultative process of 
> an adequate duration.
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-- 
Professor Marianne Franklin
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/f491c20d/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Fri Nov 29 08:33:50 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:33:50 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting
 of High-Level Panel
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBuPTkB+Uuwj4-OWKG+-byCuBca8jJDNkQTu4ZKCkLxUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <529819BF.2050604@ciroap.org>
	<4D7B4EF8-E88F-4F70-9D62-DFDAD8A1C7C3@glocom.ac.jp>
	<5298248F.1000703@ciroap.org>
	<CAJqNAHBuPTkB+Uuwj4-OWKG+-byCuBca8jJDNkQTu4ZKCkLxUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh13ZsT5Nr5WupM+i-W6C-R9Th3fM0dxoQ0sxsenbTOfb5A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jeremy, all

I have nothing againt the two nominees.   The whole part of 1Net, what is
it doing on the HLP? These are two different issues.  I went to the pad and
canceled out the paragraph on 1Net, but there is still 1Net on the  very
first paragraph.

I do NOT think this letter is clear. In such communications, the shorter
the better. If HLP  is mixed with 1Net, Fadi can decide to construe it the
way he wants. One possible misunderstanding will be that the two are being
proposed for the HLP and also for 1Net..

My suggstion will be to have a 2 paragraph letter saying:

   1. We had informed you that we wanted more CS representation on the HLP
   2. We formed a joint committee of several CS networks
   3. We have consulted as rapidly as possible to be able to  have the
   suggested reps integrated in time for London
   4. Here are the suggestions

Just keep the communication to London and leave 1Net alone


My 2 cents


N


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The two nominees have my full support, but again, I have considerable
> issues with the letter in which their nomination is supposed to be shared
> with ICANN - in fact so much so that I was wondering whether this was
> written in jest, to see if someone would pick up on these issues?
>
> In any case, just in case it wasn't in jest: I do not remember anyone ever
> claiming that the panel was a 1net panel. It was very clear that it emerged
> out of ICANN, and though some who are involved in 1net might have been
> consulted on it to a greater extent than others, that doesn't change this
> fundamental fact. The letter thus confuses issues, and by doing so, is
> unnecessarily antagonistic. More importantly, it therefore also gives the
> panel a weight that not all on this list (and on the IGC list, as far as I
> could see) feel it deserves - in fact, some are quite clear it does not,
> and the panel thus should not be sanctified in ways that have not been
> agreed on.
>
> There are also a few strange terms being used in the letter. As far as I
> know, the panel was never named the "CEO's High Level Panel". Also, if
> someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about
> "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time
> I hear about this.
>
> In its current form, I find it quite unacceptable to send this.
>
> My 2 paise,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
> On 29 November 2013 10:52, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>>  On 29/11/13 13:18, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>> Thanks for this.
>>
>> I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered.
>>
>> My experience of trying to co-coordinate CS contributions to IG topics for a couple of years during the Tunis phase of WSIS and later involvement with the first couple of years of IGF, this just doesn't sit well with me.
>>
>>
>> I will address this in the old thread (Re: [bestbits] Formation of a
>> joint steering Committee - as received).  This thread is not for process
>> concerns, just for comments on the two names.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> *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
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @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.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/3c0b45b1/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Fri Nov 29 08:36:17 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:36:17 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting
 of High-Level Panel
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh13ZsT5Nr5WupM+i-W6C-R9Th3fM0dxoQ0sxsenbTOfb5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <529819BF.2050604@ciroap.org> <4D7B4EF8-E88F-4F70-9D62-DFDAD8A1C7C3@glocom.ac.jp> <5298248F.1000703@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHBuPTkB+Uuwj4-OWKG+-byCuBca8jJDNkQTu4ZKCkLxUw@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh13ZsT5Nr5WupM+i-W6C-R9Th3fM0dxoQ0sxsenbTOfb5A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52989851.2020707@gold.ac.uk>

*1 from me. Thanks Nnenna

best
MF

On 29/11/2013 13:33, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
> Hi Jeremy, all
>
> I have nothing againt the two nominees.   The whole part of 1Net, what 
> is it doing on the HLP? These are two different issues.  I went to the 
> pad and canceled out the paragraph on 1Net, but there is still 1Net on 
> the  very first paragraph.
>
> I do NOT think this letter is clear. In such communications, the 
> shorter the better. If HLP  is mixed with 1Net, Fadi can decide to 
> construe it the way he wants. One possible misunderstanding will be 
> that the two are being proposed for the HLP and also for 1Net..
>
> My suggstion will be to have a 2 paragraph letter saying:
>
>  1. We had informed you that we wanted more CS representation on the HLP
>  2. We formed a joint committee of several CS networks
>  3. We have consulted as rapidly as possible to be able to  have the
>     suggested reps integrated in time for London
>  4. Here are the suggestions
>
> Just keep the communication to London and leave 1Net alone
>
>
> My 2 cents
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Anja Kovacs 
> <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     The two nominees have my full support, but again, I have
>     considerable issues with the letter in which their nomination is
>     supposed to be shared with ICANN - in fact so much so that I was
>     wondering whether this was written in jest, to see if someone
>     would pick up on these issues?
>
>     In any case, just in case it wasn't in jest: I do not remember
>     anyone ever claiming that the panel was a 1net panel. It was very
>     clear that it emerged out of ICANN, and though some who are
>     involved in 1net might have been consulted on it to a greater
>     extent than others, that doesn't change this fundamental fact. The
>     letter thus confuses issues, and by doing so, is unnecessarily
>     antagonistic. More importantly, it therefore also gives the panel
>     a weight that not all on this list (and on the IGC list, as far as
>     I could see) feel it deserves - in fact, some are quite clear it
>     does not, and the panel thus should not be sanctified in ways that
>     have not been agreed on.
>
>     There are also a few strange terms being used in the letter. As
>     far as I know, the panel was never named the "CEO's High Level
>     Panel". Also, if someone could guide me to a space where I can
>     find out more about "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins,
>     I'd be grateful - first time I hear about this.
>
>     In its current form, I find it quite unacceptable to send this.
>
>     My 2 paise,
>     Anja
>
>
>
>
>     On 29 November 2013 10:52, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
>     <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>         On 29/11/13 13:18, Adam Peake wrote:
>>         Hi Jeremy,
>>
>>         Thanks for this.
>>
>>         I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered.
>>
>>         My experience of trying to co-coordinate CS contributions to IG topics for a couple of years during the Tunis phase of WSIS and later involvement with the first couple of years of IGF, this just doesn't sit well with me.
>
>         I will address this in the old thread (Re: [bestbits]
>         Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received).  This
>         thread is not for process concerns, just for comments on the
>         two names.
>
>
>         -- 
>
>         *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>
>
>         Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>         knowledge hub |
>         http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
>         @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.
>
>         *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>         recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end.
>         For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>     The Internet Democracy Project
>
>     +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>

-- 
Professor Marianne Franklin
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/4490212c/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov 29 08:40:57 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 21:40:57 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting
 of High-Level Panel
In-Reply-To: <52989851.2020707@gold.ac.uk>
References: <529819BF.2050604@ciroap.org> <4D7B4EF8-E88F-4F70-9D62-DFDAD8A1C7C3@glocom.ac.jp> <5298248F.1000703@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHBuPTkB+Uuwj4-OWKG+-byCuBca8jJDNkQTu4ZKCkLxUw@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh13ZsT5Nr5WupM+i-W6C-R9Th3fM0dxoQ0sxsenbTOfb5A@mail.gmail.com> <52989851.2020707@gold.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <4EBACD94-20B6-43C4-B66D-CAF893D0AB38@ciroap.org>

Agree, thanks Nnenna and Marianne. I've informed the other networks that due to problems with the covering letter and lack of time to adequately address them, we should forward the nominees without the letter. 

-- 
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}'
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.



> On 29 Nov 2013, at 9:36 pm, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> *1 from me. Thanks Nnenna
> 
> best
> MF
> 
>> On 29/11/2013 13:33, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>> Hi Jeremy, all
>> 
>> I have nothing againt the two nominees.   The whole part of 1Net, what is it doing on the HLP? These are two different issues.  I went to the pad and canceled out the paragraph on 1Net, but there is still 1Net on the  very first paragraph.
>> 
>> I do NOT think this letter is clear. In such communications, the shorter the better. If HLP  is mixed with 1Net, Fadi can decide to construe it the way he wants. One possible misunderstanding will be that the two are being proposed for the HLP and also for 1Net..
>> 
>> My suggstion will be to have a 2 paragraph letter saying:
>> We had informed you that we wanted more CS representation on the HLP
>> We formed a joint committee of several CS networks
>> We have consulted as rapidly as possible to be able to  have             the suggested reps integrated in time for London
>> Here are the suggestions
>> Just keep the communication to London and leave 1Net alone
>> 
>> 
>> My 2 cents
>> 
>> 
>> N
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> The two nominees have my full support, but again, I have considerable issues with the letter in which their nomination is supposed to be shared with ICANN - in fact so much so that I was wondering whether this was written in jest, to see if someone would pick up on these issues? 
>>> 
>>> In any case, just in case it wasn't in jest: I do not remember anyone ever claiming that the panel was a 1net panel. It was very clear that it emerged out of ICANN, and though some who are involved in 1net might have been consulted on it to a greater extent than others, that doesn't change this fundamental fact. The letter thus confuses issues, and by doing so, is unnecessarily antagonistic. More importantly, it therefore also gives the panel a weight that not all on this list (and on the IGC list, as far as I could see) feel it deserves - in fact, some are quite clear it does not, and the panel thus should not be sanctified in ways that have not been agreed on. 
>>> 
>>> There are also a few strange terms being used in the letter. As far as I know, the panel was never named the "CEO's High Level Panel". Also, if someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time I hear about this.
>>> 
>>> In its current form, I find it quite unacceptable to send this.
>>> 
>>> My 2 paise,
>>> Anja
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 29 November 2013 10:52, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 29/11/13 13:18, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> My experience of trying to co-coordinate CS contributions to IG topics for a couple of years during the Tunis phase of WSIS and later involvement with the first couple of years of IGF, this just doesn't sit well with me.
>>>> 
>>>> I will address this in the old thread (Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received).  This thread is not for process concerns, just for comments on the two names.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>> 
>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>> 
>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>> 
>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>> 
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> -- 
> Professor Marianne Franklin
> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> Dept. of Media & Communications
> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> @GloComm
> https://twitter.com/GloComm
> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> @netrights
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/b18849af/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Nov 29 10:35:48 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:35:48 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting
 of High-Level Panel
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh13ZsT5Nr5WupM+i-W6C-R9Th3fM0dxoQ0sxsenbTOfb5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <529819BF.2050604@ciroap.org>	<4D7B4EF8-E88F-4F70-9D62-DFDAD8A1C7C3@glocom.ac.jp>	<5298248F.1000703@ciroap.org>	<CAJqNAHBuPTkB+Uuwj4-OWKG+-byCuBca8jJDNkQTu4ZKCkLxUw@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh13ZsT5Nr5WupM+i-W6C-R9Th3fM0dxoQ0sxsenbTOfb5A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <041c01ceed18$ae5fb930$0b1f2b90$@gmail.com>

Recognizing that there were misunderstandings on many sides, I'm wondering
whether a mad dash to respond to what appears to have been an off-the-cuff
lapel-grabbed "invitation" to participate in an internal ICANN exercise in
self-importance is worth tossing away whatever credibility and legitimacy CS
has gained for the probity of its internal processes over the last 10 years.

 

The real issues, and they are very real indeed, will hopefully be addressed
in Brazil and I think the time and energy would/will have been better spent
putting together some legitimate, transparent and effectively accountable
nomination and policy development processes in anticipation of what will be
required from CS to be a useful and legitimate partner in those activities.

 

M

 

 
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/internet-justice-a-meme-whose-time
-has-come/>
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/internet-justice-a-meme-whose-time-
has-come/

 <http://tinyurl.com/lwuyvdk> http://tinyurl.com/lwuyvdk

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 5:34 AM
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting
of High-Level Panel

 

Hi Jeremy, all

I have nothing againt the two nominees.   The whole part of 1Net, what is it
doing on the HLP? These are two different issues.  I went to the pad and
canceled out the paragraph on 1Net, but there is still 1Net on the  very
first paragraph.

I do NOT think this letter is clear. In such communications, the shorter the
better. If HLP  is mixed with 1Net, Fadi can decide to construe it the way
he wants. One possible misunderstanding will be that the two are being
proposed for the HLP and also for 1Net..

My suggstion will be to have a 2 paragraph letter saying:

1.	We had informed you that we wanted more CS representation on the HLP
2.	We formed a joint committee of several CS networks
3.	We have consulted as rapidly as possible to be able to  have the
suggested reps integrated in time for London
4.	Here are the suggestions

Just keep the communication to London and leave 1Net alone

 

My 2 cents

 

N

 

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
wrote:

Dear all,

The two nominees have my full support, but again, I have considerable issues
with the letter in which their nomination is supposed to be shared with
ICANN - in fact so much so that I was wondering whether this was written in
jest, to see if someone would pick up on these issues? 

In any case, just in case it wasn't in jest: I do not remember anyone ever
claiming that the panel was a 1net panel. It was very clear that it emerged
out of ICANN, and though some who are involved in 1net might have been
consulted on it to a greater extent than others, that doesn't change this
fundamental fact. The letter thus confuses issues, and by doing so, is
unnecessarily antagonistic. More importantly, it therefore also gives the
panel a weight that not all on this list (and on the IGC list, as far as I
could see) feel it deserves - in fact, some are quite clear it does not, and
the panel thus should not be sanctified in ways that have not been agreed
on. 

There are also a few strange terms being used in the letter. As far as I
know, the panel was never named the "CEO's High Level Panel". Also, if
someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about
"multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time I
hear about this.

In its current form, I find it quite unacceptable to send this.

My 2 paise,
Anja


 

 

On 29 November 2013 10:52, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

On 29/11/13 13:18, Adam Peake wrote:

Hi Jeremy,
 
Thanks for this.
 
I have a concern.  But first could you please explain who was involved in
the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria
considered, who were the candidates considered.  
 
My experience of trying to co-coordinate CS contributions to IG topics for a
couple of years during the Tunis phase of WSIS and later involvement with
the first couple of years of IGF, this just doesn't sit well with me.

 

I will address this in the old thread (Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint
steering Committee - as received).  This thread is not for process concerns,
just for comments on the two names.

 

-- 

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> 

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |
http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
http://jere.my/l/8m.

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053>  | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/f5a49b13/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Fri Nov 29 11:20:34 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:20:34 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC
Message-ID: <CADFgh11RayoOeeV2vPaOfop8bZSLmx9jCEGkNP1dLyocdh-ayw@mail.gmail.com>

Just published here:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/

N
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/fa25eee9/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Nov 29 14:27:58 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:27:58 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh11RayoOeeV2vPaOfop8bZSLmx9jCEGkNP1dLyocdh-ayw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh11RayoOeeV2vPaOfop8bZSLmx9jCEGkNP1dLyocdh-ayw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com>

Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna.

 

Paul uses the term "Internet community" in several places and I'm curious
what he means by it. 

 

I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our
definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our
discussions often go off the rails-we have different conceptions of who the
audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address
from time to time.

 

(I provided my own definition in my current blogpost
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/internet-justice-a-meme-whose-time
-has-come/> , but I'm not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of
course ISOC,  ICANN, IETF also all use the term "Internet community" and if
those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated.

 

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM
To: Governance; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC

 

 

Just published here:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/

N[MG>]   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/91dde697/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Nov 29 15:50:48 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:50:48 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps
Message-ID: <C1CC82A39B27413AAA9AFBE657226682@Toshiba>

Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time.

Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe,  the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process.

I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe.


Ian Peter


29 November 2013
RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London

Dear Fadi and Nora:

I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the
civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your
willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet
governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on
your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to
this panel to provide more balance.
After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society
representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the
private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel.
Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are:
1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org)
2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu)
Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our
representatives directly to arrange their participation?
We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as
a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator.
We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil
society in such panels and committees.
Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society
networks were:
Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation
Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits
Signed,
Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/b2db126e/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Fri Nov 29 15:57:14 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:57:14 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps
In-Reply-To: <C1CC82A39B27413AAA9AFBE657226682@Toshiba>
References: <C1CC82A39B27413AAA9AFBE657226682@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CADFgh10+5QvW2yUfVUdqDgZ6HYG1_RNA_jkLyKOjfoPX4d9ZxQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Ian.

Letter looks fine. And thanks to the team for giving time to this.
Best to the nominees.

N


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an
> independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this
> meeting in two weeks time.
>
> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was
> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe,  the people
> involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process.
>
> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names,
> and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have
> been the alternative in this timeframe.
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> 29 November 2013
> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London
>
> Dear Fadi and Nora:
>
> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of
> representatives of the
> civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations,
> we appreciate your
> willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of
> Internet
> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is
> under-represented on
> your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil
> society participants to
> this panel to provide more balance.
> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2
> civil society
> representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from
> government, the
> private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel.
> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level
> Panel are:
> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org)
> 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu)
> Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and
> contact our
> representatives directly to arrange their participation?
> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo
> Foundation as
> a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator.
> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable
> representation of civil
> society in such panels and committees.
> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various
> civil society
> networks were:
> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation
> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
> Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus
> (IGC)
> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits
> Signed,
> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/29aee934/attachment.htm>

From valeriab at apc.org  Fri Nov 29 16:20:01 2013
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:20:01 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10+5QvW2yUfVUdqDgZ6HYG1_RNA_jkLyKOjfoPX4d9ZxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C1CC82A39B27413AAA9AFBE657226682@Toshiba> <CADFgh10+5QvW2yUfVUdqDgZ6HYG1_RNA_jkLyKOjfoPX4d9ZxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A6F20B8-1CB7-4874-811F-491CC6963EDE@apc.org>

+ 1

Valeria

On 29/11/2013, at 15:57, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:

> Thanks Ian.
>
> Letter looks fine. And thanks to the team for giving time to this.
> Best to the nominees.
>
> N
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>  
> wrote:
> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as  
> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation  
> at this meeting in two weeks time.
>
> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result  
> was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe,   
> the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation  
> process.
>
> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit  
> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying  
> nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe.
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> 29 November 2013
> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London
>
> Dear Fadi and Nora:
>
> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition  
> of representatives of the
> civil society networks most involved in Internet governance  
> deliberations, we appreciate your
> willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the  
> future of Internet
> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society  
> is under-represented on
> your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional  
> civil society participants to
> this panel to provide more balance.
> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the  
> following 2 civil society
> representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers  
> from government, the
> private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial  
> panel.
> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High  
> Level Panel are:
> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org)
> 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu)
> Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and  
> contact our
> representatives directly to arrange their participation?
> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the  
> Diplo Foundation as
> a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator.
> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more  
> equitable representation of civil
> society in such panels and committees.
> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from  
> various civil society
> networks were:
> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation
> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
> Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance  
> Caucus (IGC)
> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits
> Signed,
> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131129/89850077/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Nov  4 12:10:17 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:10:17 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CA6B00A-6817-47F5-B497-FACEE4D0ABE9@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Carolina,

Thanks very much for this. 

I guess the first observation is that if the i-coordination group wants to discuss process it should start by inviting civil society to the discussion, that would be a first step to good process.  Shouldn't go any further until there's CS on the list other than you guys who, as I understand, are there as coordinators with the Brazilian organizing group, not as CS reps per se.

Might ask Joseph Alhadeff if he really means "input from the Technical, Business, Civil Society and Academic communities".  He seems to have created a new standalone stakeholder group.  Good, but I doubt his intention. (?)

Will we hear from Brazil on November 11 about their plans for the Summit (what does Brazil want to achieve from the meeting,  are the topics still the President's five principles + ICANN and IANA reform.)

As background, how is marco civil progressing?  Would the passing of that legislation be relevant to the principle the President mentioned on net neutrality in particular, or more broadly than that?

Best,

Adam





On Nov 5, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:

> Michael et al,
> 
> Just want to report back on the activities on the i-coordination list, as asked by Michael. 
> Some of those on the "i-coordination" list are setting November 11th as the deadline to publish this concept note. Others think this deadline should not be the real one to pressure this group to publish the statement. 
> For instance, Joseph Alhadeff, from Oracle,  is calling for the group to set a process, before 
> moving on content proposals. I attach his proposal that has been circulated one hour 
> ago. Nobody has replied yet. 
> Joana is on vacation currently - but she is checking emails from time to time. I think Laura is 
> coming back from vacation now and CA is coming back from the LACNIC meeting 
> and may have more news. 
> The Brazilian government has not yet reached to us, but we have sent a short 
> follow-up asking how things are moving and if we should set a call or something. 
> So, no news on that front. 
> Folks who do not have english as theirs first language prefer coalition to dialogue, so that is a 
> third avenue of debate in that list.
> Nobody on that list has specific comment on the suggestions we have sent them so far. (the general 
> ones Joana pointed in her first email).
> So, I am reaching out to check if this group as new and specific comments to both documents.
> We could set a date for comments and I consolidate what we get in this list and send back to them. 
> Would that work? Does anybody else have another suggestion?
> Should we move this forward in parallel to the representativeness discussion?
> I put my name forward to stay in a liaison position both on the side of the Br government
> as on the side of the iStart coalition/dialogue if we wish to continue on that front.
> I attach a version of the "DIGE" document with some quick suggestions I've made. 
> Should I put this document in a google drive, in order to collect your comments/suggestions? 
> How could we best deal with this editing process?
> Looking forward to your comments and suggestions,
> Best,
> 
> Carolina
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Joana and all,
> 
>  
> 
> Please note that this following clause from the statement you forwarded, is highly exclusive depending on how/who is interpreting it… This needs to be further clarified, defined or eliminated IMHO.
> 
>  
> 
> Contributors to the Dialogue believe that Internet Governance is best done through multi-stakeholder means - that is, in ways which incorporate the views, and seek the agreement, of all those involved in the evolution and development of the Internet
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:34 AM
> To: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Hi.
> 
> While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list still remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on in the very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I* representatives, which I have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina and Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also, there are others BB subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may want to weigh in.
> 
> I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the report, that meeting took a different direction and was focused on building the "coalition". So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the issue of representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS participation beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage.
> Summary
> After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list (i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc.
> 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the term "coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Internet Governance
> 
> 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel, from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name, people got mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are marked in the attachment as well.
> 
> Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no government or representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any extent. I've also sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming events were only events from the technical communities and there is no language on human rights in the text, just on business and innovation. No replies here received on these issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for our inputs.
> 
> 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim steering committee (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as who were at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respective "stakeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that the list is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from business community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation between the large group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a subset of it that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process." 
> 
> It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee which raises questions about the composition of the group (until now there is no balance in terms of number of representatives from each stakeholder group). This proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by oracle about representativeness.
> 
> In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:
> 
> >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue?
> >> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazilian summit? ( There is no governments or international organizations in the concept note. Carolina and I made that point a few days ago, but it was not heard until now)
> >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?
> Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our previous thread about the first report. Another report, about our the meeting with the Brazilian gov is coming soon.
> If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a) one regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian government) + the other trying to reach a common ground with the Dialogue. Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and comprehensive way.
> all the best
> joana
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
> 
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Carolina Rossini 
> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
> Open Technology Institute
> New America Foundation
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
> 
> <Initial concepts and process requirements for the___DIALOGUE.doc><DIGE-gs-cr.doc>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 29 20:30:46 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:30:46 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Rigf_discuss] Fwd: [Rigf_program] Fwd:
 [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [Brazil] NCSG representatives for
 civil society participation on High Level Meeting in London
In-Reply-To: <529837B1.6000208@ciroap.org>
References: <CADrRf+eVYN8voYY_yEiq2KFKJrR8EgG9S1OOM0p6VKdtvpfKew@mail.gmail.com>
 <A451A1FA-B7E7-4694-AB08-BD24AB49F44A@registry.asia> <529837B1.6000208@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjdEKmP6yBzXz0CTGZZqPQ58pA3HSRyL-3K6tpeK8ADxg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Cheryl for the clarification.

Not having followed all the emails around Brazil meeting and London etc,
not attending the ICANN meeting, like many others on this list, it is quite
helpful to know what exactly is going on.

That is also what I expected from the APrIGF (and its list) with some people
close to the activities who could share info with others.

best,

izumi



2013/11/29 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>

>  On 29/11/13 14:11, Yannis Li wrote:
>
> On 28/11/2013 10:00, Sally Costerton wrote:
>   > Olivier
> > Just picked this up and I need to correct this. The request from
> > Fadi/Adiel is for two contributors from civil society to serve on the
> > Brazil Meeting Steering Committee which will be one of the four groups
> > that were announced by CGI on Tuesday that will organize the meeting
> > in Brazil next year.  This request came from Adiel on the 1net
> > coordination list and this is the one that has a deadline attached.
> >
> > The meeting in London on Dec 12 and 13 is different. It is a meeting
> > of the Panel members already announced last week and Chaired by Vint
> > Cerf and President Thomas Ilves.
>
> I see that people are mixing the two issues -- and indeed, based on the
> second hand information on the list, I was also mixing the two issues.
> So as you can read: there is NO additional search for the meeting on Dec
> 12 & 13 according to Sally Costerton.
>
>
> This is a misunderstanding by Sally, then. :-)  We are putting forward
> names for the December 12 and 13 meeting not main in response to Fadi's
> suggestion, but rather because it is our expectation that the High Level
> Panel should be balanced as between the stakeholder groups, and as such we
> are entitled to be more evenly represented on the High Level Panel than we
> are now, with representatives whom we, rather than ICANN, choose.
>
>
>    On the issue of the request from Fadi/Adiel for two contributors from
> civil society to serve on the Brazil Meeting Steering Committee, this
> request was made on the 1net coordination list so this is not something
> asked from the NCSG exclusively.
>
>
> Agreed that that is a separate and equally important issue, and a separate
> point that have made is that despite claims to the contrary, it is now
> clear that 1net is not to be coordinating stakeholder representation for
> the Brazil meeting.  So we will not be nominating people in response to any
> call that 1net makes, but rather liaising directly with the Brazilian
> organisers in this regard.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/5752be8e/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov 30 00:26:59 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:56:59 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <52997723.60707@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 26 November 2013 11:23 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>
> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like 
> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS 
> groups (and others)  to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil 
> meeting. These are:
>
> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote 
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>
> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal 
> Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by 
> President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
>
> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for 
> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>
> 1.Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by 
> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>

Andrew,

Why should a proposal that advocates continued existence of ICANN as an 
UN organisation under US law be posited as a prime example of an 
'internationalisation model' , especially when we are here as a global 
group... Cant we do with a more neutral framing? Dont know if anyone is 
coordinating this line/ sub-area, but I am happy to do so..

> 2.Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and 
> the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>

Had requested that this be called as 'Internet related public policy 
issues' which is a proper description and also the WGIG and Tunis agenda 
terms..

parminder


> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest 
> in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of 
> different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>
> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to 
> be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the 
> best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular 
> submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want 
> to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and 
> then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions 
> would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but 
> consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
>
> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>
> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed 
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are 
> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening 
> the IGF)
>
> Asubmission on the first high level principle dealing with free 
> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy 
> protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression 
> unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there 
> are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know 
> who would want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>
> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and 
> seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to 
> Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should 
> aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on 
> the BB platform by mid-February
>
> 	
>
> *Stream 1*
>
> 	
>
> *Stream 2*
>
> 	
>
> *Stream 3*
>
> 	
>
> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote 
> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>
> 	
>
> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco 
> Civil and/or other existing principles documents).*
>
> 	
>
> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder 
> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based 
> on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 
> 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and 
> the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>
> Andrew
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free 
> expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>
> 	
>
> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed 
> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to 
> include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>
> Matthew
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> Nnenna
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> Claudio
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x - contribute, not lead
>
> 	
>
> Valeria/ APC
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x - contribute
>
> 	
>
> x - contribute
>
> Marianne/ IRP
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> Jeanette
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x - listen and comment
>
> M. Gurstein
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> Marilia/ Joana
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 3.1/3.2
>
> Pranesh
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> Parminder
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> 	
>
> x
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org*
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/b669b7a7/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov 30 00:29:21 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:59:21 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest
In-Reply-To: <52997723.60707@itforchange.net>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D97FDF@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D9814B@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <52997723.60707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <529977B1.2040209@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:56 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 26 November 2013 11:23 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>
>> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference.
>>
>> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like 
>> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS 
>> groups (and others) to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil 
>> meeting. These are:
>>
>> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote 
>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>
>> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal 
>> Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by 
>> President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA).
>>
>> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for 
>> multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>
>> 1.Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by 
>> Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>
>
> Andrew,
>
> Why should a proposal that advocates continued existence of ICANN as 
> an UN organisation

sorry, US organisation
> under US law be posited as a prime example of an 'internationalisation 
> model' , especially when we are here as a global group... Cant we do 
> with a more neutral framing? Dont know if anyone is coordinating this 
> line/ sub-area, but I am happy to do so..
>
>> 2.Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and 
>> the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>
>
> Had requested that this be called as 'Internet related public policy 
> issues' which is a proper description and also the WGIG and Tunis 
> agenda terms..
>
> parminder
>
>
>> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest 
>> in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of 
>> different civil society submissions on each of these areas.
>>
>> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to 
>> be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the 
>> best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular 
>> submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want 
>> to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and 
>> then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions 
>> would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but 
>> consensus may be too high a bar at this stage.
>>
>> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs:
>>
>> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed 
>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are 
>> likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening 
>> the IGF)
>>
>> Asubmission on the first high level principle dealing with free 
>> expression, privacy etc.  Note that I’m concerned that privacy 
>> protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression 
>> unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>
>> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there 
>> are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know 
>> who would want to work with me on these two specific topics.
>>
>> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and 
>> seek collaborators.  As we will probably need to submit our views to 
>> Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should 
>> aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on 
>> the BB platform by mid-February
>>
>> 	
>>
>> *Stream 1*
>>
>> 	
>>
>> *Stream 2*
>>
>> 	
>>
>> *Stream 3*
>>
>> 	
>>
>> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote 
>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)*
>>
>> 	
>>
>> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco 
>> Civil and/or other existing principles documents).*
>>
>> 	
>>
>> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder 
>> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN 
>> (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or 
>> others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the 
>> WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).*
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free 
>> expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed 
>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to 
>> include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Claudio
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x - contribute, not lead
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Valeria/ APC
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x - contribute
>>
>> Marianne/ IRP
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Jeanette
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x - listen and comment
>>
>> M. Gurstein
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> Marilia/ Joana
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 3.1/3.2
>>
>> Pranesh
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> 	
>>
>> x
>>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> *gp-digital.org*
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/4948c0b8/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Sat Nov 30 01:23:09 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:53:09 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps
In-Reply-To: <4A6F20B8-1CB7-4874-811F-491CC6963EDE@apc.org>
References: <C1CC82A39B27413AAA9AFBE657226682@Toshiba>
	<CADFgh10+5QvW2yUfVUdqDgZ6HYG1_RNA_jkLyKOjfoPX4d9ZxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A6F20B8-1CB7-4874-811F-491CC6963EDE@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDSY++-Dqc2djVoKrtnmcM+7At4oLq2earUqOmxSziDyg@mail.gmail.com>

+1
On Nov 30, 2013 2:50 AM, "Valeria Betancourt" <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:

> + 1
>
> Valeria
>
> On 29/11/2013, at 15:57, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>
> Thanks Ian.
>
> Letter looks fine. And thanks to the team for giving time to this.
> Best to the nominees.
>
> N
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>   Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as
>> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this
>> meeting in two weeks time.
>>
>> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was
>> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe,  the people
>> involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process.
>>
>> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit
>> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would
>> have been the alternative in this timeframe.
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>> 29 November 2013
>> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London
>>
>> Dear Fadi and Nora:
>>
>> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of
>> representatives of the
>> civil society networks most involved in Internet governance
>> deliberations, we appreciate your
>> willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future
>> of Internet
>> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is
>> under-represented on
>> your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil
>> society participants to
>> this panel to provide more balance.
>> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2
>> civil society
>> representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from
>> government, the
>> private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel.
>> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level
>> Panel are:
>> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org)
>> 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu)
>> Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and
>> contact our
>> representatives directly to arrange their participation?
>> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the
>> Diplo Foundation as
>> a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator.
>> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable
>> representation of civil
>> society in such panels and committees.
>> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from
>> various civil society
>> networks were:
>> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation
>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
>> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
>> Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus
>> (IGC)
>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits
>> Signed,
>> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/713c5bb8/attachment.htm>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Sat Nov 30 08:31:13 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 08:31:13 -0500
Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil society
 endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)
Message-ID: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Anja,


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:
<snip>



> Also, if someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about
> "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time
> I hear about this.
>

This is a very good question.  I don't know much about non-Internet-y
multi-equal-ness, but I think the purest form of multi-equal stakeholderism
in IG can be found in some of the RIR PDPs and the IETF processes.

Here are the relevant bits of the AFRINIC PDP (my emphasis added):

5) Policy Development Working Group

The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses about the
proposals. *Anyone
may participate via the Internet or in person. The work is carried out
through the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (RPD) and the Public
Policy Meeting (PPM). Any person, participating either in person or
remotely, is considered to be part of the Policy Development Working Group.*



The Policy Development Working Group has two Chairs to perform the
administrative functions of the group. The Working Group Chairs will be
chosen by the AfriNIC community during the Public Policy Meeting and they
will serve staggered two-year terms. The term ends during the first Public
Policy Meeting meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which they
were appointed. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the
Public Policy Meeting and no later than the last day of the Public Policy
Meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the current Chair and the
new Chair.



As a special case for the two Working Group Chairs appointed when this
policy first takes effect, one of the Chairs will be appointed for a
two-year term, and the other Chair will be appointed for a one-year term.



If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve his or her full term, the
Working Group may select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term.
If the Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the Public Policy Meeting,
the Working Group shall nominate a Chair for the session. Anyone present at
the meeting, whether in person or by remote participation, may participate
in the selection process for a temporary Chair.


6) Policy Development Process

*Anyone can submit a proposal. *Policy proposals are submitted to the
Resource Policy Discussion mailing list by the author. AfriNIC will provide
administrative support and assist the author(s) in drafting the proposal,
if requested. AfriNIC shall also provide relevant facts and statistics if
requested during the discussion.



*6.1 Draft Policy*

During the development of a policy, draft versions of the document are made
available for review and comment by publishing them on the AfriNIC website
and posting them to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list. The
document shall include the information mentioned in Appendix A. Each draft
policy is assigned a unique identifier by AfriNIC. The website shall also
contain the version history and the status of all proposals.



The draft policy shall be available for review for at least four weeks
before the next Public Policy Meeting. The author(s) shall make the
necessary changes to the draft policy according to the feedback received.
The Working Group Chair(s) may request AfriNIC to provide an analysis,
technical, financial, legal or other, of the impact of the draft policy.



A draft policy expires after one calendar year unless it is approved by the
AfriNIC Board of Directors as a policy. The timeout period is restarted
when the draft policy is replaced by a more recent version of the proposal.
A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a notification
to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list.



*6.2 Public Policy Meeting*

The draft policy is placed on the agenda of the an open public policy
meeting. The agenda of the meeting shall be announced on the Resource
Policy Discussion mailing list at least two weeks prior to the meeting. No
change can be made to a draft policy within one week of the meeting. This
is so that a stable version of the draft policy can be considered at the
meeting. *The Chair(s) determines whether rough consensus has been achieved
during the Public Policy Meeting.*



The Chair(s) shall publish the minutes of proceedings of the Public Policy
Meeting not later than three weeks after the meeting.



*6.3 Last Call*

A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group
Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion
mailing list. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. The Working
Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the Public
Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether consensus has been
achieved.



*6.4 Approval*

The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the AfriNIC
Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of the Policy
Development Working Group. The recommendation shall include a report of the
discussions of the draft policy and feedback from the Last Call. The draft
policy shall be ratified by the AfriNIC Board of Directors.



*6.5 Implementation*

The adoption and implementation date of the policy is announced on the
Resource Policy Discussion mailing list. The implementation date should be
less than six months after the end of the Last Call unless a waiver is
requested.


7) Conflict Resolution

A person who disagrees with the actions taken by the Chair(s) shall discuss
the matter with the Working Group Chair(s) or with the Working Group. If
the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person may file an
appeal with an Appeal Committee appointed by the AfriNIC Board of
Directors. An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3)
persons from the Working Group who have participated in the discussions.



The appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge of
the decision. The Appeal Committee shall issue a report on its review of
the complaint to the Working Group. The Appeal Committee may direct that
the Chair(s) decision be annulled if the Policy Development Process has not
been followed.



*Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any time, upon
written request with justification to the AfriNIC Board of Directors.* The
request must supported by at least five (5) other persons from the Working
Group. The AfriNIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall committee,
excluding the persons requesting the recall and the Working Group Chairs.
The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of the
justification for the recall and determine the outcome.



For the IETF, please see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418


   "There is no formal membership in the IETF.  Participation is open to
   all.  This participation may be by on-line contribution, attendance
   at face-to-face sessions, or both.  Anyone from the Internet
   community who has the time and interest is urged to participate in
   IETF meetings and any of its on-line working group discussions.
   Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than by
   formal representatives of organizations."


 Alternatively, there is http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3929.txt

I do recall seeing a video in which Steve Crocker secribes how some of the
early decisions were made.
I think it was for the ICANN 15 year anniversary, but maybe not.  In any
case, he describes the beginning of
these processes, or at least their early precursors.

I hope you find these useful.

Regards,

McTim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/f1bcb2f3/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Nov 30 10:45:41 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:45:41 +0800
Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil
 society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>

On 30 Nov 2013, at 9:31 pm, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, if someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time I hear about this.
> 
> This is a very good question.  I don't know much about non-Internet-y multi-equal-ness, but I think the purest form of multi-equal stakeholderism in IG can be found in some of the RIR PDPs and the IETF processes.

It's an odd choice of example, since many would say the IETF is not multi-stakeholder all, since it does not recognise stakeholder groups.  Where multi-equal stakeholderism is usually used specifically in reference to organisations that do recognise stakeholder groups, to indicate that they should be equal to one another in process terms.  This distinguishes it from forms of multi-stakeholderism like at the OECD and purportedly at the ITU, that don't recognise equality between the stakeholders.  So it's an attempt to refine the term multi-stakeholderism.  I have to say, I don't really like the term though.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/143738a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/143738a6/attachment.sig>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Nov 30 10:57:52 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 00:57:52 +0900
Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil
 society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)
In-Reply-To: <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <DF7CF722-0ECE-4DD9-B24C-56010F9D4AB3@glocom.ac.jp>

concept of "multi-equal-stakeholder" was introduced by Fadi Chehadé soon after he joined ICANN last year.  Might have been used before, but something he's spoken of often.  It will be in meeting transcripts from around Oct 2012, or see, example, 

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/10/15/icanns-new-ceo-talks-about-balance-of-power/

http://www.dotgreen.org/blogs-updates/new-season/

Adam


On Dec 1, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 30 Nov 2013, at 9:31 pm, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Also, if someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time I hear about this.
>> 
>> This is a very good question.  I don't know much about non-Internet-y multi-equal-ness, but I think the purest form of multi-equal stakeholderism in IG can be found in some of the RIR PDPs and the IETF processes.
> 
> It's an odd choice of example, since many would say the IETF is not multi-stakeholder all, since it does not recognise stakeholder groups.  Where multi-equal stakeholderism is usually used specifically in reference to organisations that do recognise stakeholder groups, to indicate that they should be equal to one another in process terms.  This distinguishes it from forms of multi-stakeholderism like at the OECD and purportedly at the ITU, that don't recognise equality between the stakeholders.  So it's an attempt to refine the term multi-stakeholderism.  I have to say, I don't really like the term though.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 


From ellanso at cdt.org  Mon Nov  4 13:49:00 2013
From: ellanso at cdt.org (Emma Llanso)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:49:00 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] IETF-88 sessions on IG and surveillance
Message-ID: <5277EC1C.7020702@cdt.org>

Hi all,

There are a few sessions at this week's IETF meeting that may be of 
interest to those on this list:

IGOVUPDATE - Monday, 4 November 2013, 1300-1430 PST
Featuring an update on IGF 8 from Jari Arkko and Andrew Sullivan.

Technical Plenary - Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 0900-1130
Featuring discussion on "Internet Hardening" led by Bruce Schneier, 
Brian Carpenter, and Stephen Farrell, including what we know about the 
various attack and monitoring techniques being used by NSA and other 
governments, and potential IETF activities.

You can listen to the sessions by clicking on the speaker icon on the 
event agenda: tools.ietf.org/agenda/88/.  Short summaries of these 
sessions and more available in ISOC's Rough Guide to IETF 88: 
http://www.internetsociety.org/rough-guide-ietf88.

-- 
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> | 
@ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/d5e547b2/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Nov  4 13:50:53 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:50:53 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01a001ced98e$cfc969b0$6f5c3d10$@gmail.com>

Thanks for this Carolina and it is extremely useful.

 

I've accepted all the edits in the version that you sent and added some
editing (some for English usage and some more substantive) as well as a
number of comments to both articles attached.

 

I have one general point and two more specific points.

 

The general point is whether it is in the interests of CS in relation to the
Brazil process to become submerged in the "Dialogue/Coalition". I can see
how it would be to the advantage of the technical and private sector
stakeholders to have such a united front, particularly if it is formulated
on basic principles which they espouse, but I can see no advantage and a
number of disadvantages in CS not maintaining its independence and
developing an independent voice/input into the Brazil meeting including both
the preparatory and follow-up processes.

 

Further to that I have some question whether CS should be privileging the
IGF as compared to other possible mechanisms in our formulation pre-Brazil
as these documents do.

 

Finally, I have some question as to whether CS should be aligning itself
with MS processes and MSism as the "statement" does without at least an
attempt to more fully define what in fact MS/MSism is meant to mean in the
context of this document

 

Best,.

 

Mike

 

From: Carolina Rossini [mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:48 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Joana Varon Ferraz; bestbits
Subject: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue
debates

 

Michael et al,

 

Just want to report back on the activities on the i-coordination list, as
asked by Michael. 

Some of those on the "i-coordination" list are setting November 11th as the
deadline to publish this concept note. Others think this deadline should not
be the real one to pressure this group to publish the statement. 

For instance, Joseph Alhadeff, from Oracle,  is calling for the group to set
a process, before 

moving on content proposals. I attach his proposal that has been circulated
one hour 

ago. Nobody has replied yet. 

Joana is on vacation currently - but she is checking emails from time to
time. I think Laura is 

coming back from vacation now and CA is coming back from the LACNIC meeting 

and may have more news. 

The Brazilian government has not yet reached to us, but we have sent a short


follow-up asking how things are moving and if we should set a call or
something. 

So, no news on that front. 

Folks who do not have english as theirs first language prefer coalition to
dialogue, so that is a 

third avenue of debate in that list.

Nobody on that list has specific comment on the suggestions we have sent
them so far. (the general 

ones Joana pointed in her first email).

So, I am reaching out to check if this group as new and specific comments to
both documents.

We could set a date for comments and I consolidate what we get in this list
and send back to them. 

Would that work? Does anybody else have another suggestion?

Should we move this forward in parallel to the representativeness
discussion?

I put my name forward to stay in a liaison position both on the side of the
Br government

as on the side of the iStart coalition/dialogue if we wish to continue on
that front.

I attach a version of the "DIGE" document with some quick suggestions I've
made. 

Should I put this document in a google drive, in order to collect your
comments/suggestions? 

How could we best deal with this editing process?

Looking forward to your comments and suggestions,

Best,

 

Carolina

 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Joana and all,

 

Please note that this following clause from the statement you forwarded, is
highly exclusive depending on how/who is interpreting it. This needs to be
further clarified, defined or eliminated IMHO.

 

Contributors to the Dialogue believe that Internet Governance is best done
through multi-stakeholder means - that is, in ways which incorporate the
views, and seek the agreement, of all those involved in the evolution and
development of the Internet

 

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:34 AM
To: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
I*coalition/dialogue debates

 

 

Dear all, 

Hi. 

While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list still
remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on in the
very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I*
representatives, which I have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina and
Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also, there are others BB
subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may want to
weigh in. 

I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that
meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the
meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus
Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil
society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the
report, that meeting took a different direction and was focused on building
the "coalition". So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the
issue of representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS participation
beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage. 

Summary

After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list
(i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note
and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises
the following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra,
auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin
(2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc. 

1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the
difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the term
"coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue
for the Evolution of Internet Governance

2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel,
from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name, people got
mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are marked in the
attachment as well.

Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no government or
representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any extent. I've also
sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming events were only events
from the technical communities and there is no language on human rights in
the text, just on business and innovation. No replies here received on these
issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for our
inputs. 

3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a
thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim
steering committee (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as who
were at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respective
"stakeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that the
list is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from
business community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation
between the large group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a
subset of it that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process." 

It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee which
raises questions about the composition of the group (until now there is no
balance in terms of number of representatives from each stakeholder group).
This proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by oracle about
representativeness. 

In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:

>> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue? 

>> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazilian
summit? ( There is no governments or international organizations in the
concept note. Carolina and I made that point a few days ago, but it was not
heard until now)

>> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?

Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our previous
thread about the first report. Another report, about our the meeting with
the Brazilian gov is coming soon. 

If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a) one
regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian
government) + the other trying to reach a common ground with the Dialogue.
Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and
comprehensive way.

all the best

joana


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





 

-- 

Carolina Rossini 

Project Director, Latin America Resource Center

Open Technology Institute

New America Foundation

//

 <http://carolinarossini.net/> http://carolinarossini.net/

+ 1 6176979389
* <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com> carolina.rossini at gmail.com*

skype: carolrossini

@carolinarossini

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/13970ca6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Initial concepts and process requirements for the___DIALOGUE-MG.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29184 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/13970ca6/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIGE-gs-cr-mg.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 53760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/13970ca6/attachment-0001.doc>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Nov  4 14:41:17 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:41:17 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <01a001ced98e$cfc969b0$6f5c3d10$@gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com> <01a001ced98e$cfc969b0$6f5c3d10$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <024ADD46-5884-47A7-BF77-BAE3333A5E33@ciroap.org>

On 4 Nov 2013, at 7:50 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Further to that I have some question whether CS should be privileging the IGF as compared to other possible mechanisms in our formulation pre-Brazil as these documents do.
>  
> Finally, I have some question as to whether CS should be aligning itself with MS processes and MSism as the "statement" does without at least an attempt to more fully define what in fact MS/MSism is meant to mean in the context of this document

Briefly, I share both of these concerns.  There is nothing here so far to suggest that the references to the IGF, multi-stakeholder processes and even enhanced cooperation are not just the innocuous versions of those loose concepts, that pose no threat to those with vested interests in the status quo. The exclusion of governments from the dialogue also confirms that the dialogue is likely to be an echo chamber in which those who already have particular views about governments and Internet governance, reinforce those views.  In that light is participation in the dialogue a wise investment of our time, which is already so very stretched?

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/25378389/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/25378389/attachment.sig>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Mon Nov  4 21:28:57 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 21:28:57 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
Message-ID: <9oh0b5eddp0gbj8v49jay5xf.1383618537427@email.android.com>

I am all for the most valuable use of our time. So what would that be? Until we know who will devise the agenda or structure for the Brazil summit,  I find it hard to answer my own question.  So I lean towards engaging until I know it is a waste of time.

-------- Original message --------
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> 
Date:  
To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Cc: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>,Joana Varon Ferraz <joana at varonferraz.com>,bestbits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] RE: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates 
 
On 4 Nov 2013, at 7:50 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Further to that I have some question whether CS should be privileging the IGF as compared to other possible mechanisms in our formulation pre-Brazil as these documents do.
 
Finally, I have some question as to whether CS should be aligning itself with MS processes and MSism as the "statement" does without at least an attempt to more fully define what in fact MS/MSism is meant to mean in the context of this document

Briefly, I share both of these concerns.  There is nothing here so far to suggest that the references to the IGF, multi-stakeholder processes and even enhanced cooperation are not just the innocuous versions of those loose concepts, that pose no threat to those with vested interests in the status quo. The exclusion of governments from the dialogue also confirms that the dialogue is likely to be an echo chamber in which those who already have particular views about governments and Internet governance, reinforce those views.  In that light is participation in the dialogue a wise investment of our time, which is already so very stretched?

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/ce3ca80d/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Mon Nov  4 21:45:31 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:45:31 +1300
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <9oh0b5eddp0gbj8v49jay5xf.1383618537427@email.android.com>
References: <9oh0b5eddp0gbj8v49jay5xf.1383618537427@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <52785BCB.7070402@apc.org>

+1 - I agree that a process of continuous reflection is useful, but for
now I remain comfortable with our process and the women leading it
(thanks Carolina and Joana for your work).
Regards
Joy

On 5/11/2013 3:28 p.m., genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
> I am all for the most valuable use of our time. So what would that be?
> Until we know who will devise the agenda or structure for the Brazil
> summit,  I find it hard to answer my own question.  So I lean towards
> engaging until I know it is a waste of time.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date:
> To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Cc: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>,Joana Varon Ferraz
> <joana at varonferraz.com>,bestbits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RE: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
> I*coalition/dialogue debates
>
>
> On 4 Nov 2013, at 7:50 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Further to that I have some question whether CS should be privileging
>> the IGF as compared to other possible mechanisms in our formulation
>> pre-Brazil as these documents do.
>>  
>> Finally, I have some question as to whether CS should be aligning
>> itself with MS processes and MSism as the "statement" does without at
>> least an attempt to more fully define what in fact MS/MSism is meant
>> to mean in the context of this document
>
> Briefly, I share both of these concerns.  There is nothing here so far
> to suggest that the references to the IGF, multi-stakeholder processes
> and even enhanced cooperation are not just the innocuous versions of
> those loose concepts, that pose no threat to those with vested
> interests in the status quo. The exclusion of governments from the
> dialogue also confirms that the dialogue is likely to be an echo
> chamber in which those who already have particular views about
> governments and Internet governance, reinforce those views.  In that
> light is participation in the dialogue a wise investment of our time,
> which is already so very stretched?
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/1f3f161d/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Mon Nov  4 22:02:06 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:02:06 +1300
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52785FAE.9030305@apc.org>

thanks for the update Carolina - very useful.
On the concepts and process requirements: this needs more work currently
ranging from very highlevel to practical (not a bad thing per se) but
just to get the mix right for a concept note.  I think item 5 is very
important and addresses some concerns about process (though probably not
all).  perhaps worth clarifying what happens where various stakeholder
groups do not agree (ie presumably consensus is needed).
I think a google or other shared doc for the DIGE document would be
helpful. Good to see reference to the best bits statement there. I
suspect the problem definition will be hardest to agree on.
i still believe having a separate line of communication with the Brazil
government is important and is a unique role for Brazil civil society
orgs and one of critical value for those without Portugese language.
Best and thanks again for your work on this

Joy

On 5/11/2013 5:47 a.m., Carolina Rossini wrote:
> Michael et al,
>
> Just want to report back on the activities on the i-coordination list,
> as asked by Michael. 
> Some of those on the "i-coordination" list are setting November 11th
> as the deadline to publish this concept note. Others think this
> deadline should not be the real one to pressure this group to publish
> the statement. 
> For instance, Joseph Alhadeff, from Oracle,  is calling for the group
> to set a process, before 
> moving on content proposals. I attach his proposal that has been
> circulated one hour 
> ago. Nobody has replied yet. 
> Joana is on vacation currently - but she is checking emails from time
> to time. I think Laura is 
> coming back from vacation now and CA is coming back from the LACNIC
> meeting 
> and may have more news. 
> The Brazilian government has not yet reached to us, but we have sent a
> short 
> follow-up asking how things are moving and if we should set a call or
> something. 
> So, no news on that front. 
> Folks who do not have english as theirs first language prefer
> coalition to dialogue, so that is a 
> third avenue of debate in that list.
> Nobody on that list has specific comment on the suggestions we have
> sent them so far. (the general 
> ones Joana pointed in her first email).
> So, I am reaching out to check if this group as new and specific
> comments to both documents.
> We could set a date for comments and I consolidate what we get in this
> list and send back to them. 
> Would that work? Does anybody else have another suggestion?
> Should we move this forward in parallel to the representativeness
> discussion?
> I put my name forward to stay in a liaison position both on the side
> of the Br government
> as on the side of the iStart coalition/dialogue if we wish to continue
> on that front.
> I attach a version of the "DIGE" document with some quick suggestions
> I've made. 
> Should I put this document in a google drive, in order to collect your
> comments/suggestions? 
> How could we best deal with this editing process?
> Looking forward to your comments and suggestions,
> Best,
>
> Carolina
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Joana and all,
>
>      
>
>     Please note that this following clause from the statement you
>     forwarded, is highly exclusive depending on how/who is
>     interpreting it… This needs to be further clarified, defined or
>     eliminated IMHO.
>
>      
>
>     /Contributors to the Dialogue believe that Internet Governance is
>     best done through multi-stakeholder means - that is, in ways which
>     incorporate the views, and seek the agreement, _of all those
>     involved in the evolution and development of the Internet_/
>
>     /_ _/
>
>     M
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>     [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] *On Behalf Of *Joana
>     Varon
>     *Sent:* Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:34 AM
>     *To:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>&gt,
>     *Subject:* [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
>     I*coalition/dialogue debates
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     Hi.
>
>     While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB
>     list still remains, please, find below a summary about what has
>     been going on in the very closed list that was created after the
>     Friday meeting with Fadi and I* representatives, which I have
>     reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina and Laura, please, feel
>     free to add other points. Also, there are others BB subscribers
>     that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may want to
>     weigh in.
>
>     I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went
>     to that meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit.
>     And since the meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF,
>     the three of us, plus Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons
>     to help facilitate civil society participation in the event.
>     Nevertheless, as you could read in the report, that meeting took a
>     different direction and was focused on building the "coalition".
>     So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the issue of
>     representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS
>     participation beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage.
>
>     *Summary*
>
>     After the meeting, held on Oct, 25^th ,a closed mailing list
>     (i-coordination at nro.net <mailto:i-coordination at nro.net>) has been
>     created for the drafting the concept note and debating the name of
>     the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the following
>     organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda,
>     internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin
>     (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc.
>
>     1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and
>     the difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less
>     binding, the term "coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name
>     is: 1net | An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Internet Governance
>
>     2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent
>     by Adiel, from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the
>     name, people got mostly focused in the name. The only comments
>     received are marked in the attachment as well.
>
>     Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no
>     government or representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue
>     to any extent. I've also sent comments regarding the fact that the
>     upcoming events were only events from the technical communities
>     and there is no language on human rights in the text, just on
>     business and innovation. No replies here received on these issues
>     whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for our
>     inputs.
>
>     3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast.
>     Today a thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation
>     of an interim steering committee (about20 people, as far as I
>     understood, the same as who were at the Friday meeting) which will
>     then liaise with their respective "stakeholder" groups. Quoting
>     the admin of the list, the reason was that the list is "receiving
>     every day requests to add new people (specially from business
>     community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation
>     between the large group of people ready to engage into the
>     dialogue and a subset of it that will facilitate and coordinate
>     the whole process."
>
>     It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee
>     which raises questions about the composition of the group (until
>     now there is no balance in terms of number of representatives from
>     each stakeholder group). This proposal got 3 agreements and one
>     point raised by oracle about representativeness.
>
>     In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:
>
>     >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue?
>
>     >> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the
>     Brazilian summit? ( There is no governments or international
>     organizations in the concept note. Carolina and I made that point
>     a few days ago, but it was not heard until now)
>
>     >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?
>
>     Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our
>     previous thread about the first report. Another report, about our
>     the meeting with the Brazilian gov is coming soon.
>
>     If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with:
>     a) one regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the
>     Brazilian government) + the other trying to reach a common ground
>     with the Dialogue. Sounds complicated if we don't use our
>     diversity in a kindly and comprehensive way.
>
>     all the best
>
>     joana
>
>
>     -- 
>     -- 
>
>     Joana Varon Ferraz
>     @joana_varon
>     PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>      
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Carolina Rossini* 
> /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/7ec6ebb8/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Tue Nov  5 06:52:26 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:52:26 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Summaries and notes from the BestBits sessions on
 ITU, WSIS and Cyber
In-Reply-To: <5270E271.1070304@cdt.org>
References: <5270E271.1070304@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5278DBFA.2060904@gold.ac.uk>

HI all

Matthew, here are the notes from the Saturday afternoon breakout group 
on Human Rights and Cybersecurity/surveillance..

best
MF

On 30/10/2013 11:41, matthew shears wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Would those of you who have yet to forward to Joana and me notes from 
> the breakout sessions we held on ITU, WSIS and Cyber (2 groups) please 
> do so.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Matthew
>

-- 
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BB Day 1-Breakout Group_Cybersecurity and human rights.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 28672 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/90e2ba4a/attachment.doc>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Nov  5 07:11:17 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:11:17 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: GNSO and CEO Discussion on the
 Montevideo Statement
References: <3758D003-D6BB-424B-84F5-B0395EC19726@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <F55D1361-A1BA-4A6A-9447-1DC30894AFF0@glocom.ac.jp>

Might be of interest -- members of ICANN's GNSO Council and Fadi Chehade discuss the Montevideo Statement, the multistakeholder summit in Brazil etc.  

Adam



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Date: November 4, 2013 6:31:40 PM GMT+09:00
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: GNSO and CEO Discussion on the Montevideo Statement
> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
>> Subject: GNSO and CEO Discussion on the Montevideo Statement
>> Date: November 3, 2013 10:31:52 PM PST
>> To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, 'Tony Holmes' <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "krosette at cov.com" <krosette at cov.com>, "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "william.drake at uzh.ch" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "mllemineur at gmail.com" <mllemineur at gmail.com>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade at icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele at blacknight.com>
>> Cc: Susie Johnson <susie.johnson at icann.org>, Tina Shelebian <tina.shelebian at icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>, Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org>, Tarek Kamel <tarek.kamel at icann.org>
>> 
>> Dear Colleagues:
>> 
>> Below is the link to the MP3 recording of the discussion on the Montevideo Statement and recent developments.
>>  
>> https://icann.box.com/shared/static/k49p1bi9r0mvq9p5d4bw.mp3
>> 
>>  The Adobe Connect Chat and the transcript are also attached.
>> 
>> Regards,      David
>>  
>> 
>> --
>> David A. Olive
>> 
>> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul
>> 
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
>> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey 
>> 
>> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
>> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/75b7a876/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[13].png
Type: image/png
Size: 2793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/75b7a876/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/75b7a876/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Adobe Connect Chat - 10-31-2013.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16092 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/75b7a876/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/75b7a876/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20131031_GNSO_CEO_MontevideoStatement_ID829442.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 49394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/75b7a876/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/75b7a876/attachment-0003.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Nov  5 07:11:43 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:11:43 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <9oh0b5eddp0gbj8v49jay5xf.1383618537427@email.android.com>
References: <9oh0b5eddp0gbj8v49jay5xf.1383618537427@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <5278E07F.30402@cdt.org>

+1

On 05/11/2013 02:28, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
> I am all for the most valuable use of our time. So what would that be? 
> Until we know who will devise the agenda or structure for the Brazil 
> summit,  I find it hard to answer my own question.  So I lean towards 
> engaging until I know it is a waste of time.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date:
> To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Cc: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>,Joana Varon Ferraz 
> <joana at varonferraz.com>,bestbits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RE: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary 
> I*coalition/dialogue debates
>
>
> On 4 Nov 2013, at 7:50 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Further to that I have some question whether CS should be privileging 
>> the IGF as compared to other possible mechanisms in our formulation 
>> pre-Brazil as these documents do.
>> Finally, I have some question as to whether CS should be aligning 
>> itself with MS processes and MSism as the "statement" does without at 
>> least an attempt to more fully define what in fact MS/MSism is meant 
>> to mean in the context of this document
>
> Briefly, I share both of these concerns.  There is nothing here so far 
> to suggest that the references to the IGF, multi-stakeholder processes 
> and even enhanced cooperation are not just the innocuous versions of 
> those loose concepts, that pose no threat to those with vested 
> interests in the status quo. The exclusion of governments from the 
> dialogue also confirms that the dialogue is likely to be an echo 
> chamber in which those who already have particular views about 
> governments and Internet governance, reinforce those views.  In that 
> light is participation in the dialogue a wise investment of our time, 
> which is already so very stretched?
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/e625e97a/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov  5 05:24:38 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:54:38 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Day 1: Multi-stakeholder Processes and IGF
 Discussion
In-Reply-To: <5276BECA.5070609@apc.org>
References: <52635CBD.9080104@apc.org> <07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org> <5275F29B.6030400@itforchange.net> <5276BECA.5070609@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5278C766.4070509@itforchange.net>

Hi Joy

I refer to interactions during the last plenary session on processes. It 
wasnt in the small groups sessions. The exchange about the need for 
clearer/ formal processes versus we should not become too formal and 
inflexible continued over quite some time, involving many interventions.

As for the details you ask for - it begun I think with a demand that 
those closely associated with BB processes be upfront about their 
organisational details, funding support etc so that members knew clearly 
who is who and so on. To this was added request to be more clear about 
goals of the coalition (included if needed through a charter) and the 
need to actively reach out to bring in those who werent here... It was 
proposed that BB works as a membership driven organisation, with members 
driven processes/ decisions. There was demands for greaer clarity about 
how decisions are made and who made them....

Regards, parminder



On Monday 04 November 2013 02:53 AM, joy wrote:
> Hi Parminder - i need a clarification please... In relation to the 
> Best Bits quality mark idea, you wrote:
> {snip}
> "when some process issues were raised there were many people labelling 
> them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism"
> I do not recall this from the large group discussion - but perhaps it 
> was in the small groups or was it missed in the meeting notes? To 
> assist, can you please be more specific about the actual concerns that 
> were raised and those labelling them in this way? It is difficult to 
> assess your comments in detail without the particulars .
> thanks
> Joy
>
> On 3/11/2013 7:52 p.m., parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday 22 October 2013 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> 
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>   * A *fluid working group* (to use one of our new catchphrases)
>>>     could work online to distill it down into a shorter statement of
>>>     principles, and get underway on that now with the aim of making
>>>     at least some further progress by the time of our workshop on
>>>     Thursday.  Would you be willing to be a focal point for the
>>>     fluid working group?
>>>   * For the longer-term, we could try to develop these principles
>>>     into a standard of our own, that we could apply to various
>>>     Internet governance institutions.  During a workshop yesterday
>>>     on metrics of multi-stakeholderism, I first raised this idea as
>>>     a kind of "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes.  As
>>>     many people have noted during this IGF already, everything from
>>>     the IETF to ICANN to the IGF is called a "multi-stakeholder
>>>     process", yet they are so very different.  A *Best Bits "quality
>>>     label" for multi-stakeholder processes* could help to provide a
>>>     more useful benchmark for these processes than the WSIS process
>>>     criteria alone.
>>>
>>
>> To be able to do any such kind of quality labelling, BB would itself 
>> first have to follow very high quality processes. However at the f2f 
>> meeting when some process issues were raised there were many people 
>> labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism.  So, not sure 
>> how we would resolve the apparent contradiction here.....
>>
>> I do think that when people put themselves up for public roles, 
>> especially in very political processes like the kind we all are 
>> engaged in, they need to be held to very high levels of openness, 
>> transparency, accountability and so on, and these things should not 
>> be dismissed as unneeded formalism. Democratic public life has been 
>> carefully imbued with a lot of such 'formalism' over the centuries 
>> precisely because of this reason.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps the same fluid working group could take on both objectives 
>>> in turn.  What do people think?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement 
>>> knowledge hub 
>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>
>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | 
>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless 
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. 
>>> For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/2e26c5dd/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov  5 07:14:29 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:44:29 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>,<0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> <snip>
>
> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the 
> end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15.  Whether 
> by the coalition of the willing, or others.
>
> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other 
> governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room 
> have just  7 weeks to come up with something sensible.
>
> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's 
> afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will 
> accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of 
> the wicked plenipot)
>
> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + 
> IANA contract, per what we are hearing:  zero
>
> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan 
> issues home of some coherence into existence: zero
>
>  (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder 
> and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up 
> OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld 
> with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer 
> prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone 
> advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.)

Lee,

India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is 
basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, 
since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 
'policy development body' with the IGF.  In its latest submission to the 
WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other 
public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* 
oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical 
to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus.

And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a 
specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global 
body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue 
separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly 
constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the 
current distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure 
related policy making and implementation processes.

In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have 
listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an 
global institutional framework, and some global Internet related 
principles.

I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional 
framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public 
policy issues  (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in 
some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, 
and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to 
day technical operations.

And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some 
principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.

We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over 
procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit 
initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders 
coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to 
get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit.

parminder





> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot 
> matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or 
> Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several 
> decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not.
>
> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a 
> classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the 
> group hug/photo op. And a press release.
>
> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents:
>
> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page 
> press release.
>
> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this.
>
> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say 
> 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it.
>
> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, 
> whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but 
> remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: 
> deal with it, and be very succinct.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake 
> [dave at difference.com.au]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow 
> lunchtime
>
>
> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU 
> <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au 
>> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary
>>     motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for
>>     Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their
>>     timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create
>>     a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear
>>     alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact
>>     form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any
>>     other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate
>>     constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things
>>     largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go,
>>     and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance).
>>
>>
>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of 
>> inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel 
>> very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally 
>> uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. 
>> There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT 
>> in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and 
>> the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that 
>> bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio 
>> meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet 
>> governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda 
>> merely in order to pre-empt the ITU.
>
> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations 
> like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism 
> since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG 
> feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to 
> have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current 
> political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say 
> whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that 
> they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here.
> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix 
> ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the 
> IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for 
> renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.
>
>
>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government 
>> coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing 
>> close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can 
>> we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening?
>
> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I 
> do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no 
> reason to doubt him either.
>
>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of 
>> letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always 
>> reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own?
>
> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. 
> I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously 
> post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent 
> they started the process themselves.
>
>
>>     This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion
>>     about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of
>>     that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those
>>     of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very
>>     keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I
>>     find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role
>>     of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there
>>     are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near
>>     allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts
>>     of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies
>>     or misrepresenting its processes.
>>
>>
>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my 
>> messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to 
>> reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a 
>> determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful 
>> initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just 
>> don't think we need to be driven by fear.
>
> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll 
> cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of 
> course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though 
> you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point 
> of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a 
> perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA 
> contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem 
> to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and 
> ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi 
> personally choosing to push the process along.
>
> Regards
>
> David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/2dc8ec28/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Nov  5 08:52:31 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:52:31 +0000
Subject: From practice to theory? RE: [bestbits] Summaries and notes from
 the BestBits sessions on ITU, WSIS and Cyber
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A406B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,

Off topic I confess....still:

Thought I would pass along this call for chapters for our book which is focused on next-gen architectures...cybersecurity being prominent on our suggested topics list. 

Human rights, security/surveillance in future Internet/Internet of Things context would not be of-topic if some of you were so motivated to submit a chapter proposal in about a month.

Lee


________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Marianne Franklin [m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 6:52 AM
To: matthew shears
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Summaries and notes from the BestBits sessions on ITU, WSIS and Cyber

HI all

Matthew, here are the notes from the Saturday afternoon breakout group
on Human Rights and Cybersecurity/surveillance..

best
MF

On 30/10/2013 11:41, matthew shears wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Would those of you who have yet to forward to Joana and me notes from
> the breakout sessions we held on ITU, WSIS and Cyber (2 groups) please
> do so.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Matthew
>

--
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Wireless Grid Edgeware BookCallforChapters10.31.2013.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 307200 bytes
Desc: Wireless Grid Edgeware BookCallforChapters10.31.2013.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/ef075742/attachment.pdf>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Nov  5 09:20:41 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:20:41 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>
 <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>
 <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>,<E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A40B6@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Well Suresh, if we think of a ICANN-msh-procedures-based/melded/funded CIRP, then that could be a different story conclusion this time around. ; )

Parminder, agreed with your

1); 2); 3); 4) Take-aways from the summit, that is not too long a list for the press release ; )

Parminder said: I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues  (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.

And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.

Lee replied:  starting on 4) with the 10 Internet rights and principles doc, already vetted and widely circulated and translated, I would think CS has much to offer here. Perhaps we were not as detailed or specific as Dilma might wish re surveillance; but cs has a strong starting point imo.

Re 1) 'internet related public policy issues' a new name would be needed, there I agree with Suresh. Still, somehow I don't see continued talk of 'orphan issues' once there is an imagined home; current phraseology is just a passing phase. 2 scenarios I will throw out there are:

1) CIRP rewrite to GICCP; for 'global Internet,' rest lifted from OECD; initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS.

2) Enhanced IGF, with small secretariat/global virtual reach, initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS.


Now re your 2), ICANNinternationalisation, agreed. In both of my cases, the whole transition path is more credible with a further shift in the IANA contract etc, as good faith gesture on ICANN's part. IGP has already made quite speciic proposals there; admittedly unlikely to all be accepted by next month by broader CS. Although we would hope Best Bits could : ).  But at the least if we agree ICANN is also on the table and fair game for discussion in May, then that is step forward.

Finally re Parminder's 3), '(3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.'
that is where the i orgs, icann, cs, private sector can best focus on interim msh procedures for moving ahead, then we really have something to offer/propose at the May summit.

In my opinion.

Lee





________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:57 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat.   And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it.

So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot.

--srs (iPad)

On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:


On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<snip>

The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15.  Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others.

Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have just  7 weeks to come up with something sensible.

So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked plenipot)

Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing:  zero

Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero

 (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.)

Lee,

India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF.  In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus.

And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation processes.

In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles.

I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues  (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.

And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.

We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit.

parminder





And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not.

Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a press release.

If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents:

forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page press release.

Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this.

Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it.

Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and be very succinct.

Lee



________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au<mailto:dave at difference.com.au>]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime


On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU<mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au<mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:

Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance).

It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU.

Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here.
I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.


And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening?

Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either.

More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own?

We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves.



This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes.


I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear.

Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along.

Regards

David

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/5103c10b/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Nov  5 10:26:30 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:26:30 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <E525AC2B-5D3B-4512-8C36-8FF60B1612AF@hserus.net>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>
 <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>
 <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>
 <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A40B6@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<E525AC2B-5D3B-4512-8C36-8FF60B1612AF@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A4105@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Please refer to new/old names GICCP or IGF ; )

Seriously. CIRP is dead and buried, long live GICCP and IGF!

Lee

PS: And really Suresh? Interests will jockey for influence and control? Now I am truly shocked! ; ) Or not at all. But moving discussion forward is fine. Also, how much to defer to IG sugar daddy/msh-good practice modeller (and yeah ok, also as occasional exemplar of what not to do), it is far too soon to say. Especially if the I orgs and make new baby more their own : ) Not to mention CS.
________________________________
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:31 AM
To: Lee W McKnight
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

Creating a brand new organization and inventing a governance / stakeholder mix for it from scratch sounds like an interesting gedankenexperiment, I must say.

However in practice it seems far better to engage internally with existing organizations, especially where they are already multistakeholder.

This especially goes for increased civil society participation in ICANN - in NCUC as well as in the other constitutencies where civil society members represent their own employers but would be well suited to bring in civil society viewpoints as far is consistent with their mandate .. or at the least, ensure an adequate level of engagement with civil society.

The underpinnings of MSism do exist in ICANN though different sections of it have entrenched special interests - which is not something I foresee will magically go away if either an ITU overseen international body steps in, or whether this new CIRP structured on the OECD ICCP and layered with multistakeholderism comes into place .. never mind the obvious question about whether or not different stakeholder groups wouldn't jockey for control of this new organization.

--srs (iPad)

On 05-Nov-2013, at 6:20, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu<mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote:

Well Suresh, if we think of a ICANN-msh-procedures-based/melded/funded CIRP, then that could be a different story conclusion this time around. ; )

Parminder, agreed with your

1); 2); 3); 4) Take-aways from the summit, that is not too long a list for the press release ; )

Parminder said: I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues  (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.

And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.

Lee replied:  starting on 4) with the 10 Internet rights and principles doc, already vetted and widely circulated and translated, I would think CS has much to offer here. Perhaps we were not as detailed or specific as Dilma might wish re surveillance; but cs has a strong starting point imo.

Re 1) 'internet related public policy issues' a new name would be needed, there I agree with Suresh. Still, somehow I don't see continued talk of 'orphan issues' once there is an imagined home; current phraseology is just a passing phase. 2 scenarios I will throw out there are:

1) CIRP rewrite to GICCP; for 'global Internet,' rest lifted from OECD; initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS.

2) Enhanced IGF, with small secretariat/global virtual reach, initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS.


Now re your 2), ICANNinternationalisation, agreed. In both of my cases, the whole transition path is more credible with a further shift in the IANA contract etc, as good faith gesture on ICANN's part. IGP has already made quite speciic proposals there; admittedly unlikely to all be accepted by next month by broader CS. Although we would hope Best Bits could : ).  But at the least if we agree ICANN is also on the table and fair game for discussion in May, then that is step forward.

Finally re Parminder's 3), '(3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.'
that is where the i orgs, icann, cs, private sector can best focus on interim msh procedures for moving ahead, then we really have something to offer/propose at the May summit.

In my opinion.

Lee





________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:57 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat.   And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it.

So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot.

--srs (iPad)

On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:


On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<snip>

The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15.  Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others.

Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have just  7 weeks to come up with something sensible.

So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked plenipot)

Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing:  zero

Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero

 (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.)

Lee,

India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF.  In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus.

And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation processes.

In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles.

I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues  (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.

And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.

We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit.

parminder





And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not.

Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a press release.

If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents:

forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page press release.

Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this.

Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it.

Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and be very succinct.

Lee



________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au<mailto:dave at difference.com.au>]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime


On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU<mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au<mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:

Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance).

It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU.

Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here.
I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.


And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening?

Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either.

More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own?

We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves.



This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes.


I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear.

Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along.

Regards

David

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/695c68c6/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Tue Nov  5 15:48:27 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:48:27 +1300
Subject: [bestbits] Day 1: Multi-stakeholder Processes and IGF
 Discussion
In-Reply-To: <5278C766.4070509@itforchange.net>
References: <52635CBD.9080104@apc.org> <07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org> <5275F29B.6030400@itforchange.net> <5276BECA.5070609@apc.org> <5278C766.4070509@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5279599B.6020402@apc.org>

thanks Parminder - if you could add those notes to the session summary,
that would be great:
http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms

cheers
Joy
On 5/11/2013 11:24 p.m., parminder wrote:
> Hi Joy
>
> I refer to interactions during the last plenary session on processes.
> It wasnt in the small groups sessions. The exchange about the need for
> clearer/ formal processes versus we should not become too formal and
> inflexible continued over quite some time, involving many interventions.
>
> As for the details you ask for - it begun I think with a demand that
> those closely associated with BB processes be upfront about their
> organisational details, funding support etc so that members knew
> clearly who is who and so on. To this was added request to be more
> clear about goals of the coalition (included if needed through a
> charter) and the need to actively reach out to bring in those who
> werent here... It was proposed that BB works as a membership driven
> organisation, with members driven processes/ decisions. There was
> demands for greaer clarity about how decisions are made and who made
> them....
>
> Regards, parminder
>
>
>
> On Monday 04 November 2013 02:53 AM, joy wrote:
>> Hi Parminder - i need a clarification please... In relation to the
>> Best Bits quality mark idea, you wrote:
>> {snip}
>> "when some process issues were raised there were many people
>> labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism"
>> I do not recall this from the large group discussion - but perhaps it
>> was in the small groups or was it missed in the meeting notes? To
>> assist, can you please be more specific about the actual concerns
>> that were raised and those labelling them in this way? It is
>> difficult to assess your comments in detail without the particulars .
>> thanks
>> Joy
>>
>> On 3/11/2013 7:52 p.m., parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 22 October 2013 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>   * A *fluid working group* (to use one of our new catchphrases)
>>>>     could work online to distill it down into a shorter statement
>>>>     of principles, and get underway on that now with the aim of
>>>>     making at least some further progress by the time of our
>>>>     workshop on Thursday.  Would you be willing to be a focal point
>>>>     for the fluid working group?
>>>>   * For the longer-term, we could try to develop these principles
>>>>     into a standard of our own, that we could apply to various
>>>>     Internet governance institutions.  During a workshop yesterday
>>>>     on metrics of multi-stakeholderism, I first raised this idea as
>>>>     a kind of "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes.  As
>>>>     many people have noted during this IGF already, everything from
>>>>     the IETF to ICANN to the IGF is called a "multi-stakeholder
>>>>     process", yet they are so very different.  A *Best Bits
>>>>     "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes* could help to
>>>>     provide a more useful benchmark for these processes than the
>>>>     WSIS process criteria alone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To be able to do any such kind of quality labelling, BB would itself
>>> first have to follow very high quality processes. However at the f2f
>>> meeting when some process issues were raised there were many people
>>> labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism.  So, not
>>> sure how we would resolve the apparent contradiction here.....
>>>
>>> I do think that when people put themselves up for public roles,
>>> especially in very political processes like the kind we all are
>>> engaged in, they need to be held to very high levels of openness,
>>> transparency, accountability and so on, and these things should not
>>> be dismissed as unneeded formalism. Democratic public life has been
>>> carefully imbued with a lot of such 'formalism' over the centuries
>>> precisely because of this reason.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the same fluid working group could take on both objectives
>>>> in turn.  What do people think?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>>> knowledge hub
>>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>
>>>> @Consumers_Int
>>>> | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>>
>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email
>>>> unless necessary.
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end.
>>>> For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131106/b3e85a95/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Nov  5 19:35:23 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:35:23 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
  I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <9oh0b5eddp0gbj8v49jay5xf.1383618537427@email.android.com>
References: <9oh0b5eddp0gbj8v49jay5xf.1383618537427@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.84.1642081821.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131106/22c60fd9/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov  6 03:40:33 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:10:33 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India,

Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India. the 
fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments cannot 
be held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they have 
repudiated their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would call 
them closed and inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC 
response - without the name though, and with an improvement of 
separating the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now wants 
to be seen separately from the mandate of the body which deals with 
general public policy issues related to the Internet. So, the Indian 
proposal for a new body for the latter purpose is still fully current.

> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat.

It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest 
level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly 
conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of 
Southern geo politics.


>   And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it 
> viable even if India had not repudiated it.

Again, India never repudiated it.

In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one view 
on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured discussion on the 
needed institutional frameworks.

parminder




parminder

>
> So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the 
> ICCP is thankfully, moot.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by 
>>> the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15.  
>>> Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others.
>>>
>>> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other 
>>> governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room 
>>> have just  7 weeks to come up with something sensible.
>>>
>>> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 
>>> (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will 
>>> accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward 
>>> of the wicked plenipot)
>>>
>>> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN 
>>> + IANA contract, per what we are hearing:  zero
>>>
>>> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan 
>>> issues home of some coherence into existence: zero
>>>
>>>  (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder 
>>> and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing 
>>> up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind 
>>> meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to 
>>> offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone 
>>> advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.)
>>
>> Lee,
>>
>> India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is 
>> basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, 
>> since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 
>> 'policy development body' with the IGF.  In its latest submission to 
>> the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and 
>> other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed 
>> the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost 
>> identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus.
>>
>> And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a 
>> specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of 
>> global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight 
>> issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and 
>> clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally 
>> recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and 
>> logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation 
>> processes.
>>
>> In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have 
>> listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an 
>> global institutional framework, and some global Internet related 
>> principles.
>>
>> I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional 
>> framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related 
>> public policy issues  (which category has been called as 'orphan 
>> issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of 
>> ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy 
>> development and day to day technical operations.
>>
>> And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with 
>> some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.
>>
>> We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over 
>> procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit 
>> initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov 
>> stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive 
>> positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive 
>> positions towards the summit.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot 
>>> matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or 
>>> Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several 
>>> decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a 
>>> classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the 
>>> group hug/photo op. And a press release.
>>>
>>> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents:
>>>
>>> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page 
>>> press release.
>>>
>>> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this.
>>>
>>> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to 
>>> say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say 
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, 
>>> whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but 
>>> remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: 
>>> deal with it, and be very succinct.
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake 
>>> [dave at difference.com.au]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM
>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting 
>>> tomorrow lunchtime
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU 
>>> <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au 
>>>> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their
>>>>     primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led
>>>>     body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are
>>>>     forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a
>>>>     hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a
>>>>     clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what
>>>>     exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS
>>>>     or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and
>>>>     participate constructively, and they are to a large extent
>>>>     rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity,
>>>>     improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they
>>>>     can (and boy can Fadi dance).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of 
>>>> inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel 
>>>> very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally 
>>>> uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. 
>>>> There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT 
>>>> in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, 
>>>> and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not 
>>>> that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use 
>>>> the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual 
>>>> Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely 
>>>> broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU.
>>>
>>> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of 
>>> nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to 
>>> multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of 
>>> post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach 
>>> to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among 
>>> the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or 
>>> even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but 
>>> it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of 
>>> argument you are putting here.
>>> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to 
>>> fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in 
>>> the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight 
>>> for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government 
>>>> coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is 
>>>> nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU 
>>>> into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is 
>>>> happening?
>>>
>>> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than 
>>> I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I 
>>> have no reason to doubt him either.
>>>
>>>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of 
>>>> letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always 
>>>> reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own?
>>>
>>> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a 
>>> little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge 
>>> spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as 
>>> becoming urgent they started the process themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>>     This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion
>>>>     about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part
>>>>     of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that
>>>>     those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself)
>>>>     are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN
>>>>     accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be
>>>>     cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and
>>>>     misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to
>>>>     criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of
>>>>     real accountability from parts of its leadership are among
>>>>     them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its
>>>>     processes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my 
>>>> messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to 
>>>> reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and 
>>>> a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful 
>>>> initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I 
>>>> just don't think we need to be driven by fear.
>>>
>>> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll 
>>> cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as 
>>> of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, 
>>> though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat 
>>> ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be 
>>> so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the 
>>> IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really 
>>> doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting 
>>> is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do 
>>> with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131106/c8c7bc5e/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Nov  6 04:37:30 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:37:30 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
 I*coalition/dialogue debates
In-Reply-To: <4CA6B00A-6817-47F5-B497-FACEE4D0ABE9@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CAK-FJAcadn6q3s6e018i42DNUDUp1J64y6fo42OQcLwoV4=FNA@mail.gmail.com> <4CA6B00A-6817-47F5-B497-FACEE4D0ABE9@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <DB94D6E9-DC0D-4C84-BA29-99B994B8A413@glocom.ac.jp>

Carolina, my apologies.  I didn't see the second attachment editing "Dialogue on Internet Cooperation Evolution" (just re-read your email.) 

On Nov 5, 2013, at 2:10 AM, Adam Peake wrote:

> Hi Carolina,
> 
> Thanks very much for this. 
> 
> I guess the first observation is that if the i-coordination group wants to discuss process it should start by inviting civil society to the discussion, that would be a first step to good process.  Shouldn't go any further until there's CS on the list other than you guys who, as I understand, are there as coordinators with the Brazilian organizing group, not as CS reps per se.
> 

So I see you are engaging as civil society, and acknowledging my mistake... I agree with Joy:

> +1 - I agree that a process of continuous reflection is useful, but for now I remain comfortable with our process and the women leading it (thanks Carolina and Joana for your work). 



And would of course still love to hear about questions below.

Thanks,

Adam


> Might ask Joseph Alhadeff if he really means "input from the Technical, Business, Civil Society and Academic communities".  He seems to have created a new standalone stakeholder group.  Good, but I doubt his intention. (?)
> 
> Will we hear from Brazil on November 11 about their plans for the Summit (what does Brazil want to achieve from the meeting,  are the topics still the President's five principles + ICANN and IANA reform.)
> 
> As background, how is marco civil progressing?  Would the passing of that legislation be relevant to the principle the President mentioned on net neutrality in particular, or more broadly than that?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> 
>> Michael et al,
>> 
>> Just want to report back on the activities on the i-coordination list, as asked by Michael. 
>> Some of those on the "i-coordination" list are setting November 11th as the deadline to publish this concept note. Others think this deadline should not be the real one to pressure this group to publish the statement. 
>> For instance, Joseph Alhadeff, from Oracle,  is calling for the group to set a process, before 
>> moving on content proposals. I attach his proposal that has been circulated one hour 
>> ago. Nobody has replied yet. 
>> Joana is on vacation currently - but she is checking emails from time to time. I think Laura is 
>> coming back from vacation now and CA is coming back from the LACNIC meeting 
>> and may have more news. 
>> The Brazilian government has not yet reached to us, but we have sent a short 
>> follow-up asking how things are moving and if we should set a call or something. 
>> So, no news on that front. 
>> Folks who do not have english as theirs first language prefer coalition to dialogue, so that is a 
>> third avenue of debate in that list.
>> Nobody on that list has specific comment on the suggestions we have sent them so far. (the general 
>> ones Joana pointed in her first email).
>> So, I am reaching out to check if this group as new and specific comments to both documents.
>> We could set a date for comments and I consolidate what we get in this list and send back to them. 
>> Would that work? Does anybody else have another suggestion?
>> Should we move this forward in parallel to the representativeness discussion?
>> I put my name forward to stay in a liaison position both on the side of the Br government
>> as on the side of the iStart coalition/dialogue if we wish to continue on that front.
>> I attach a version of the "DIGE" document with some quick suggestions I've made. 
>> Should I put this document in a google drive, in order to collect your comments/suggestions? 
>> How could we best deal with this editing process?
>> Looking forward to your comments and suggestions,
>> Best,
>> 
>> Carolina
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Joana and all,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that this following clause from the statement you forwarded, is highly exclusive depending on how/who is interpreting it… This needs to be further clarified, defined or eliminated IMHO.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Contributors to the Dialogue believe that Internet Governance is best done through multi-stakeholder means - that is, in ways which incorporate the views, and seek the agreement, of all those involved in the evolution and development of the Internet
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon
>> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:34 AM
>> To: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>> Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Hi.
>> 
>> While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list still remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on in the very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I* representatives, which I have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina and Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also, there are others BB subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may want to weigh in.
>> 
>> I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the report, that meeting took a different direction and was focused on building the "coalition". So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the issue of representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS participation beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage.
>> Summary
>> After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list (i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc.
>> 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the term "coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Internet Governance
>> 
>> 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel, from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name, people got mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are marked in the attachment as well.
>> 
>> Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no government or representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any extent. I've also sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming events were only events from the technical communities and there is no language on human rights in the text, just on business and innovation. No replies here received on these issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for our inputs.
>> 
>> 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim steering committee (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as who were at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respective "stakeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that the list is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from business community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation between the large group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a subset of it that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process." 
>> 
>> It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee which raises questions about the composition of the group (until now there is no balance in terms of number of representatives from each stakeholder group). This proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by oracle about representativeness.
>> 
>> In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:
>> 
>>>> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue?
>>>> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazilian summit? ( There is no governments or international organizations in the concept note. Carolina and I made that point a few days ago, but it was not heard until now)
>>>> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?
>> Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our previous thread about the first report. Another report, about our the meeting with the Brazilian gov is coming soon.
>> If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a) one regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian government) + the other trying to reach a common ground with the Dialogue. Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and comprehensive way.
>> all the best
>> joana
>> 
>> -- 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Carolina Rossini 
>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
>> Open Technology Institute
>> New America Foundation
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>> 
>> <Initial concepts and process requirements for the___DIALOGUE.doc><DIGE-gs-cr.doc>____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


From lucabelli at hotmail.it  Wed Nov  6 04:05:22 2013
From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:05:22 +0100
Subject: The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits] Marco Civil vote
 posponed !
In-Reply-To: <E1VbRZK-0007c4-Ac@igcaucus.org>
References:  <CAK-FJAfGv0EBRkYj=+S_Awj5K1mjjGYqevam8wnTVkPm8W4moA@mail.gmail.com>,<E1VbRZK-0007c4-Ac@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <DUB108-W19C9D2408AF6D961B47256C6F00@phx.gbl>



Dear all, 


As stressed
by Louis, Network Neutrality is a thorny and multifaceted issue. 

The NN
debate is gaining great political momentum because it has obvious consequences
on media (de)centralisation and therefore on media control. One of the points
of rough consensus that clearly emerged during IGF workshop 340 “Network
Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms” is that the protection of NN has direct
consequences on the full enjoyment of end-users’ human rights, on media
pluralism and on consumers’ rights. And these consequences are particularly amplified
when Internet users are marginalised people who are not able to organise
themselves and get their voice heard by policy-makers.


The Dynamic
Coalition on Network Neutrality (DC NN) has elaborated a Report on “The Value
of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow” that aims at elucidating
some of the facets of the NN debate, focusing particularly on human rights
issues. The report is available here: http://nebula.wsimg.com/22eb364444f4e32abb876b9be835baf8?AccessKeyId=B45063449B96D27B8F85&disposition=0


By all
means, comments are more than welcome. 


Furthermore,
the DC NN has developed a model framework on net neutrality, transposing the
IETF standardisation process to NN policy-making (see the contribution on “A Discourse
Principle Approach to Network Neutrality” in the DC NN report). The elaboration
of the model framework was initiated and has been stimulated by the Council of
Europe that stressed the need for a model framework on net neutrality since 2010 (see: art 9 of
the CoE Committee of Ministers Declaration on Network Neutrality). The model
has been developed entirely online by the DC NN through an open, transparent,
inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach and is going to be communicated to the
CoE Committee of Ministers in a couple of weeks. 


What we
should be aware of is that unregulated discriminatory traffic-management has
the potential to affect almost all dimensions of Internet governance, leading
to enormous concentration of power in the hands of private entities that are
not framed by rule-of-law and due process principles. For this reason, y humble opinion is that NN
should be one of the priorities of the Rio “meeting” in April. 


I truly hope
that that people will realise that what is at stake is the choice between
allowing Internet users to be active participants to the Internet or mere
information recipients. 


All the
best, 


Luca

Luca Belli
Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University


> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100
> To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> From: jefsey at jefsey.com
> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed !
> 
> At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial
> >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia,
> >but it would be good to have material out there from you all
> >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed
> >in Brasilia right now....
> >
> >http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm
> 
> Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined. 
> Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly 
> undefined and subjective. However,  "neutral" means "indifferent to". 
> This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever 
> it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of 
> view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are 
> independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this 
> therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles:
> 
> 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may 
> be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the 
> disparities between customers and traffic levels.
> 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be) 
> that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the 
> advantages to the "most favored partner" .
> 
> Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides 
> can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among 
> providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as 
> far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not 
> the case if:
> 
> 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non 
> commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or 
> to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its 
> delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
> 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a 
> lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated 
> management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
> 
>  From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from 
> an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides 
> you an internet link 
> that 
> he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with 
> the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is 
> a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust.
> 
> The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special 
> complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation.
> 
> In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the 
> users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT 
> a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of 
> each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently 
> use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the 
> rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do 
> not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements 
> (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education, 
> etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal 
> or corporate relational spaces within the digital international 
> networking space (InterNet). 
> 
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131106/ee363aad/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Nov  6 05:36:54 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:36:54 +0900
Subject: [governance] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits]
 Marco Civil vote posponed !
In-Reply-To: <DUB108-W19C9D2408AF6D961B47256C6F00@phx.gbl>
References: <CAK-FJAfGv0EBRkYj=+S_Awj5K1mjjGYqevam8wnTVkPm8W4moA@mail.gmail.com>,<E1VbRZK-0007c4-Ac@igcaucus.org> <DUB108-W19C9D2408AF6D961B47256C6F00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <46EA7EC3-50A2-4D9E-9C93-FC5505AA86A6@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Luca,
 
Thinking about agenda bashing for the May meeting (something suggested on another list), in Bali were heard Brazil say the norms and principles President Rousseff presented to the UN general assembly should be among the topics discussed.  The 5th principle is
 
* Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes.
 
In a high level meeting, with some stakeholders who might not be overly keen (to put it mildly) on any network neutrality discussion, all the same civil society pushing for agreement on some broad principles protecting net neutrality would be very much worthwhile.  The principles the dynamic coalition's developed, plus other work, might form the basis for a discussion at the May meeting, with a view to a recommendation to form a working group (enhancing the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality) to develop the principles further.  
 
Taking this a bit further, a goal of the May meeting might be to establish a workplan to address the topics discussed there.  For example an agenda built around President Rousseff's five norms/principles, plus ICANN and IANA reform, might see...  
A recommendation for a working group to refine principles on network neutrality.  
A working group to develop an institutional framework around the IANA function.  
A discussion on ICANN reform, but more of a watching brief; a process to monitor and report on the organization's progress responding to the processes established by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with a view to releasing it from all ties to a single govt., with parallel discussion about appropriate future oversight once the intent of the AoC achieved.  
A process established to develop broad human rights framework, perhaps building on what was described during the IGF session on surveillance as the "Swedish Model" (this might begin to address Rousseff's first principle "Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights.") 
etc.
 
Use the May meeting to set in motion a number of different activities, some with definite goals worthy of a working group (e.g. develop an institutional framework), others more general and open-ended.
 
For process to carry such things forward there will be an IGF in Turkey early September, and an IGF in Brazil about 18 months later. May is also typically when the IGF agenda is decided, so that's a fit.  Take the workplan a few months forward to September and the IGF in Turkey would be an opportunity check on progress and for further discussion to guide the work. IGF 2015 to report on completion of efforts. IGF pre-meetings and a couple of days of the main IGF agenda given over to carrying discussion forward from Brazil May.
 
Hopefully strengthen the IGF, with a plan of work that leads to outcomes, that raises its profile and relevance, utilizing working groups with a definite goal, something we've long spoke about in civil society. Makes sure there is a firm multistakeholder foundation for Internet governance discussion.

And overall recognizing we have to compromise at the beginning or we won't even get started.  

Adam


On Nov 6, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Luca Belli wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> As stressed by Louis, Network Neutrality is a thorny and multifaceted issue.
> The NN debate is gaining great political momentum because it has obvious consequences on media (de)centralisation and therefore on media control. One of the points of rough consensus that clearly emerged during IGF workshop 340 “Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms” is that the protection of NN has direct consequences on the full enjoyment of end-users’ human rights, on media pluralism and on consumers’ rights. And these consequences are particularly amplified when Internet users are marginalised people who are not able to organise themselves and get their voice heard by policy-makers.
> 
> The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DC NN) has elaborated a Report on “The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow” that aims at elucidating some of the facets of the NN debate, focusing particularly on human rights issues. The report is available here:http://nebula.wsimg.com/22eb364444f4e32abb876b9be835baf8?AccessKeyId=B45063449B96D27B8F85&disposition=0
> By all means, comments are more than welcome.
> 
> Furthermore, the DC NN has developed a model framework on net neutrality, transposing the IETF standardisation process to NN policy-making (see the contribution on “A Discourse Principle Approach to Network Neutrality” in the DC NN report). The elaboration of the model framework was initiated and has been stimulated by the Council of Europe that stressed the need for a model framework on net neutrality since 2010 (see: art 9 of the CoE Committee of Ministers Declaration on Network Neutrality). The model has been developed entirely online by the DC NN through an open, transparent, inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach and is going to be communicated to the CoE Committee of Ministers in a couple of weeks.
> 
> What we should be aware of is that unregulated discriminatory traffic-management has the potential to affect almost all dimensions of Internet governance, leading to enormous concentration of power in the hands of private entities that are not framed by rule-of-law and due process principles. For this reason, y humble opinion is that NN should be one of the priorities of the Rio “meeting” in April.
> 
> I truly hope that that people will realise that what is at stake is the choice between allowing Internet users to be active participants to the Internet or mere information recipients.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Luca
> 
> Luca Belli
> Doctorant en Droit Public
> CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas
> Sorbonne University
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100
> > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> > From: jefsey at jefsey.com
> > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed !
> > 
> > At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> > >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial
> > >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia,
> > >but it would be good to have material out there from you all
> > >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed
> > >in Brasilia right now....
> > >
> > >http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm
> > 
> > Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined. 
> > Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly 
> > undefined and subjective. However, "neutral" means "indifferent to". 
> > This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever 
> > it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of 
> > view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are 
> > independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this 
> > therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles:
> > 
> > 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may 
> > be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the 
> > disparities between customers and traffic levels.
> > 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be) 
> > that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the 
> > advantages to the "most favored partner" .
> > 
> > Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides 
> > can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among 
> > providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as 
> > far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not 
> > the case if:
> > 
> > 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non 
> > commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or 
> > to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its 
> > delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
> > 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a 
> > lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated 
> > management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
> > 
> > From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from 
> > an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides 
> > you an internet link 
> > that 
> > he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with 
> > the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is 
> > a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust.
> > 
> > The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special 
> > complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation.
> > 
> > In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the 
> > users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT 
> > a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of 
> > each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently 
> > use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the 
> > rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do 
> > not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements 
> > (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education, 
> > etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal 
> > or corporate relational spaces within the digital international 
> > networking space (InterNet). 
> > 
> > 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From bkilic at citizen.org  Wed Nov  6 11:06:06 2013
From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:06:06 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] Sign-on: NSA/USTR surveillance of advocacy groups?
In-Reply-To: <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD8D5C99@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com>
References: <LYRIS-169119479-44081176-2013.11.06-09.19.43--bkilic#citizen.org@listserver.citizen.org>
 <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B991E6B4A@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com>
 <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD8D5C82@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com>
 <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B991E6B54@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com>
 <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD8D5C99@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com>
Message-ID: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B991E6B6E@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com>


Dear Bestbits friends,

This message is from Public Citizen's president Rob Weissman, sorry for cross-posting!
Please let me know by Monday, November 11 at noon if your organization wants to sign on. We are concentrating on US groups for now.
Regards,
Burcu

--------------------------------
Dear Friends,

Many of you have probably seen this past Sunday New York Times story describing the U.S. Trade Representative's Office as a "customer" of the NSA.

The story noted that the NSA's "huge investment in [data] collection is driven by pressure from the agency's "customers," in government jargon, not only at the White House, Pentagon, F.B.I. and C.I.A., but also spread across the Departments of State and Energy, Homeland Security and Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too-minuscule-for-all-consuming-nsa.html?hp&_r=0

Among other disturbing issues, this raises the question of whether the NSA has been involved in surveillance of any of the many organizations working to ensure that U.S. trade policy serves the broad public interest rather than narrow mercantile concerns.

The brief sign-on letter below is addressed to NSA Director Keith Alexander and USTR Michael Froman. It asks them directly for assurances that our organizations are not under surveillance.

Best,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen



Dear General Alexander and Ambassador Froman,

The New York Times reports on November 3 that wide-reaching efforts by the National Security Agency to collect data are driven in part by the agency's "customers" -- a range of other government agencies that includes the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

In light of this and other disclosures, we are writing to ask if the NSA, or other national security agencies, have surveilled any U.S. organizations or individuals advocating on U.S. trade policy. We ask you to disclose any such surveillance, whether or not it occurred at the request of USTR; whether or not it involved communications with foreign nationals; and whether or not it occurred within U.S. borders.

Core American principles ranging from the right to privacy to the right to petition our government are at stake. Simply put, we believe that our organizations -- as well as all others advocating on trade policy matters -- have right to an assurance that their operations are not under surveillance by U.S. government agencies. We trust you agree.

We look forward to your reply.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131106/77e62af0/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov  6 13:31:12 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:01:12 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 06 November 2013 06:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal.

Which more or less goes against what you said in your earlier email.

The following is a proposal that India distributed to the WGEC today, 
and I quote the relevant part

"Thus there is a clear mandate for defining a mechanism for effective 
global Internet governance. The UN General Assembly could embark on 
creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international 
internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all 
stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international 
organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as 
identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also 
develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues 
associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet 
resources".

Does it sound like CIRP?

And I can assure that this is a well considered official position of 
government of India, with agreement of all the concerned ministries,  
and 'not the product of overzealousness of one bureaucrat or the other'.

Here it is  not the question of whether I agree with the above position 
or not, but to clear falsehoods being spread systematically about 
India's position. BTW, this is not very different from the position 
articulated by Brazilian President in here recent UN speech, and I quote...

"The United Nations must play a leading role in the effort to regulate 
the conduct of States with regard to these technologies. For this 
reason, Brazil will present proposals for the establishment of a 
civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the 
Internet and to ensure the effective protection of data that travels 
through the web. We need to create multilateral mechanisms for the 
worldwide network that are capable of ensuring principles such as:........"


Public policy development spaces are urgently needed at the global 
level, We need to ensure these are as open and participative as 
possible, and that civil society has a strong role in these spaces, and 
these are connected appropriately to the IGF, without making the 
manifestly anti-democratic  demand that corporations, self selected 
civil society persons and such actually have an equal role as 
governments in decision making processes in terms of Internet related 
pubic policy making. Such a demand is no less unacceptable than a demand 
that pharma companies should have a veto over health policies at the 
global and national levels.


> They (and specifically Mr. Sibal) have only gone on to support 
> something that is diametrically opposite to it, and strongly 
> reaffirmed India's commitment to multi stakeholderism.
>
> As for publicly repudiating a proposal - just a proposal mind you, not 
> something actually signed or anything - made by one of their 
> bureaucrats, why embarrass themselves by doing so, when it can be 
> quietly buried and a much better proposal taken forward?

Another mis representation.... It was an official input made under the 
name of government of India, fully signed by all that it needed to be 
signed by...


>
> Same end result, thank God.

The (end) result remains the quoted Indian position, re articulated 
today, as above.....

parminder

>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 06-Nov-2013, at 0:40, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India,
>>
>> Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India. 
>> the fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments 
>> cannot be held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they 
>> have repudiated their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would 
>> call them closed and inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
>>
>> Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC 
>> response - without the name though, and with an improvement of 
>> separating the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now 
>> wants to be seen separately from the mandate of the body which deals 
>> with general public policy issues related to the Internet. So, the 
>> Indian proposal for a new body for the latter purpose is still fully 
>> current.
>>
>>> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat.
>>
>> It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest 
>> level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly 
>> conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of 
>> Southern geo politics.
>>
>>
>>>   And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it 
>>> viable even if India had not repudiated it.
>>
>> Again, India never repudiated it.
>>
>> In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one 
>> view on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured 
>> discussion on the needed institutional frameworks.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>>
>>> So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the 
>>> ICCP is thankfully, moot.
>>>
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>
>>> On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by 
>>>>> the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15.  
>>>>> Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other 
>>>>> governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room 
>>>>> have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 
>>>>> (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) 
>>>>> will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op 
>>>>> to ward of the wicked plenipot)
>>>>>
>>>>> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching 
>>>>> ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing:  zero
>>>>>
>>>>> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan 
>>>>> issues home of some coherence into existence: zero
>>>>>
>>>>>  (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan 
>>>>> somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse 
>>>>> than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to 
>>>>> a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar 
>>>>> daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes 
>>>>> for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in 
>>>>> particular else? Nope, didn't think so.)
>>>>
>>>> Lee,
>>>>
>>>> India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is 
>>>> basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over 
>>>> it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new 
>>>> proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF.  In its latest 
>>>> submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of 
>>>> oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to 
>>>> indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - 
>>>> which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF 
>>>> linkage bonus.
>>>>
>>>> And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a 
>>>> specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of 
>>>> global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight 
>>>> issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin 
>>>> and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally 
>>>> recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and 
>>>> logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation 
>>>> processes.
>>>>
>>>> In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have 
>>>> listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an 
>>>> global institutional framework, and some global Internet related 
>>>> principles.
>>>>
>>>> I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional 
>>>> framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related 
>>>> public policy issues  (which category has been called as 'orphan 
>>>> issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of 
>>>> ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy 
>>>> development and day to day technical operations.
>>>>
>>>> And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with 
>>>> some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.
>>>>
>>>> We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over 
>>>> procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit 
>>>> initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov 
>>>> stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive 
>>>> positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive 
>>>> positions towards the summit.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot 
>>>>> matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or 
>>>>> Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several 
>>>>> decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a 
>>>>> classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed 
>>>>> the group hug/photo op. And a press release.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents:
>>>>>
>>>>> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page 
>>>>> press release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to 
>>>>> say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should 
>>>>> say it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, 
>>>>> whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but 
>>>>> remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: 
>>>>> deal with it, and be very succinct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>>>>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake 
>>>>> [dave at difference.com.au]
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM
>>>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting 
>>>>> tomorrow lunchtime
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU 
>>>>> <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake 
>>>>>> <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their
>>>>>>     primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led
>>>>>>     body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are
>>>>>>     forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in
>>>>>>     a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand
>>>>>>     as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no
>>>>>>     idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have
>>>>>>     buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort
>>>>>>     credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a
>>>>>>     large extent rushing things largely due to
>>>>>>     circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and
>>>>>>     basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of 
>>>>>> inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I 
>>>>>> feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally 
>>>>>> uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. 
>>>>>> There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was 
>>>>>> WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the 
>>>>>> Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection 
>>>>>> was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all 
>>>>>> scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing 
>>>>>> ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to 
>>>>>> deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt 
>>>>>> the ITU.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of 
>>>>> nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to 
>>>>> multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of 
>>>>> post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and 
>>>>> outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong 
>>>>> feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse 
>>>>> than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their 
>>>>> impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would 
>>>>> strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here.
>>>>> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to 
>>>>> fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in 
>>>>> the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN 
>>>>> oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government 
>>>>>> coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is 
>>>>>> nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU 
>>>>>> into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is 
>>>>>> happening?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders 
>>>>> than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since 
>>>>> WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either.
>>>>>
>>>>>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of 
>>>>>> letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you 
>>>>>> always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own?
>>>>>
>>>>> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a 
>>>>> little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge 
>>>>> spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it 
>>>>> as becoming urgent they started the process themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>     This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed
>>>>>>     discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and
>>>>>>     should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in
>>>>>>     civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including
>>>>>>     Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions
>>>>>>     about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last
>>>>>>     few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN
>>>>>>     against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough
>>>>>>     valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic
>>>>>>     reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its
>>>>>>     leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or
>>>>>>     misrepresenting its processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my 
>>>>>> messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to 
>>>>>> reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), 
>>>>>> and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's 
>>>>>> wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has 
>>>>>> done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but 
>>>>> I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you 
>>>>> specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of 
>>>>> ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a 
>>>>> somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is 
>>>>> likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an 
>>>>> opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc 
>>>>> is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any 
>>>>> of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central 
>>>>> role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push 
>>>>> the process along.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/b0f84472/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov  6 14:24:46 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:54:46 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 07 November 2013 12:42 AM, McTim wrote:
> <snip>
> Which States are willing to give up sovereignty in order to be
> regulated by the UN in this regard?

Maybe the same countries that have heavily yielded on their sovereignty 
under WTO and WIPO frameworks, apart from scores of other global treaties...
> <snip>
> So what you are saying is that the RIR processes are unacceptable to
> you?

RIR processes are very acceptable to me, and I want them to remain 
untouched, and in fact be explicitly recognised under global frameworks, 
policies and law...
> After all they "make" public policy regarding Internet number
> resources

I have always sought a distinction between making policies related to 
operational matters pertaining to the Internet, and substantive public 
polices related to the Internet. (Tunis agenda also makes this 
distinction.) Different institutional mechanisms and stakeholder roles 
are appropriate for these two kinds of policies... I again made this 
point in today's WGEC meeting, which point was echoed by Brazil, India 
and some others..

parminder
>   and have a greater role than governments in making these
> policies (largely because most governments do not participate in these
> processes).  People involved in these processes are mainly staff of
> corporations (even though they largely represent themselves), plus CS
> and others of course.
>


From jcurran at istaff.org  Wed Nov  6 14:36:10 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:36:10 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>

On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:24 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> I have always sought a distinction between making policies related to operational matters pertaining to the Internet, and substantive public polices related to the Internet. (Tunis agenda also makes this distinction.) 
> Different institutional mechanisms and stakeholder roles are appropriate for these two kinds of policies... 

Parminder - 

For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?

Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet 
substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimers:  My views (and lack of knowledge) alone responsible for this email.


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov  6 14:47:33 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 01:17:33 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:
> <snip>
> Parminder -
>
> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?

John

The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote

"69. We further recognizethe need for enhanced cooperation in the 
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their 
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues 
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and 
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy 
issues. "

This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance 
that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international 
public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* 
group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions 
and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them.

regards

parminder
>
> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet
> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> Disclaimers:  My views (and lack of knowledge) alone responsible for this email.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/854db4c1/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Wed Nov  6 15:03:02 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:03:02 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org>

On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> Parminder - 
>> 
>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?
> John
> 
> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote
> 
> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. "
> 
> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. 

Thanks for the reminder.

So on the question of terminology - 
>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet 
>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?

these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"...

Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of 
norms and customs on the Internet?   (e.g.  there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN
and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational
matters)

/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.   No public policy proposed in this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131106/d88c8cfb/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Nov  6 18:44:00 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:44:00 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow  lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>
 <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>
 <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>
 <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
 <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net>
 <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net>
 <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>
 <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>
 <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <mailman.85.1642081822.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/6b942ca5/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Nov  7 03:13:06 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:13:06 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi John,

On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote:

> On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> Parminder - 
>>> 
>>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?
>>> 
>> John
>> 
>> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote
>> 
>> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. "
>> 
>> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. 
> 

I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas.  But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet".  We've had 8 years experience with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is not day-to-day technical and operational matters.  Clearly the I* etc. are not safe from these proposals.

I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new "institutional solution" (UN body?).  As would the IANA function, global address pool, etc.  As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc.  I guess you'd still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations would in future likely be sent down from the new institution.  Probably coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of the institution on stage, etc.

Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF.  I guess that means this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity.  It will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the competent agency.

And somehow all this must be paid for.  UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.)

Not good.

Best,

Adam



> Thanks for the reminder.
> 
> So on the question of terminology - 
>>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet 
>>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?
>>> 
> these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"...
> 
> Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of 
> norms and customs on the Internet?   (e.g.  there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN
> and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational
> matters)
> 
> /John
> 
> Disclaimers:  My views alone.   No public policy proposed in this email.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu Nov  7 05:19:06 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:19:06 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <93939E4D-A3AE-4274-B1FA-12CF209A4CE5@uzh.ch>

Hi Wolfgang

On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).
> 
> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy”.

+1
> 
> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. 

Sorry, but your acronym making machine may need a tune up.  If it’s at the annual IGF, it should be Multistakeholder Yearly Organizing Policies for the Internet Council (MYOPIC).

Cheers

Bill

> MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy. 
> 
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> 
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake
> Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran
> Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>>> Parminder - 
>>>> 
>>>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?
>>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote
>>> 
>>> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. "
>>> 
>>> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. 
>> 
> 
> I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas.  But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet".  We've had 8 years experience with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is not day-to-day technical and operational matters.  Clearly the I* etc. are not safe from these proposals.
> 
> I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new "institutional solution" (UN body?).  As would the IANA function, global address pool, etc.  As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc.  I guess you'd still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations would in future likely be sent down from the new institution.  Probably coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of the institution on stage, etc.
> 
> Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF.  I guess that means this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity.  It will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the competent agency.
> 
> And somehow all this must be paid for.  UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.)
> 
> Not good.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
>> Thanks for the reminder.
>> 
>> So on the question of terminology - 
>>>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet 
>>>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?
>>>> 
>> these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"...
>> 
>> Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of 
>> norms and customs on the Internet?   (e.g.  there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN
>> and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational
>> matters)
>> 
>> /John
>> 
>> Disclaimers:  My views alone.   No public policy proposed in this email.
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/19524b89/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu Nov  7 05:45:11 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:45:11 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
 tomorrow lunchtime
In-Reply-To: <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <A02104FC-E42A-49D2-8544-33EF2B5F4924@uzh.ch>

Hi 

On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:47 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Parminder - 
>> 
>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?
> 
> John
> 
> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote
> 
> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. "
> 
> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. 

So those years of debate about enhanced cooperation => “oversight” of CIR organizations were just a dream?

Wasn’t the CIRP supposed to be all about operationalizing enhanced cooperation?   Didn’t the proposal say, "The CIRP shall be mandated to undertake the following tasks...Develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues; Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting…”

Evolution is good, revisionism is not.

Best,

Bill






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/9168eb4a/attachment.htm>

From lucabelli at hotmail.it  Thu Nov  7 05:58:24 2013
From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:58:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits]
 Marco Civil vote posponed !
In-Reply-To: <46EA7EC3-50A2-4D9E-9C93-FC5505AA86A6@glocom.ac.jp>
References:  <CAK-FJAfGv0EBRkYj=+S_Awj5K1mjjGYqevam8wnTVkPm8W4moA@mail.gmail.com>,<E1VbRZK-0007c4-Ac@igcaucus.org>
 <DUB108-W19C9D2408AF6D961B47256C6F00@phx.gbl>,<46EA7EC3-50A2-4D9E-9C93-FC5505AA86A6@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <DUB108-W27F9498F970FF30710CA71C6F30@phx.gbl>



Hi Adam,

 

Knowing that President Rousseff has explicitly called
for the creation of a “mechanisms for the worldwide network that are capable of
ensuring principles such as […] the neutrality of the network” it seems essential
to discuss net neutrality at the May meeting. 

 

>The principles the dynamic coalition's developed,
plus other work, might form the basis for a 
>discussion at the May meeting,
with a view to a recommendation to form a working group 
>(enhancing the
Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality) to develop the principles further.

 

I agree that the creation of a specific working group
could be a good idea in order to further develop the work of the DC NN.
However, let me point out that the model framework (initiated by the Council of
Europe and developed by the DC NN) is not a mere set of principles: it is
rather a techno-legal standard aimed at providing an efficient solution to
protect NN.  In the same way as Internet
standards aim at providing technical specifications that can be used to efficiently
deal with a specific issue (e.g. SIP provides elements to efficiently deal with
multimedia communication sessions), the aim of the model framework is to
provide regulatory specifications to efficiently safeguard NN
(see: http://networkneutrality.info/sources.html
)

 

>Taking this a bit further, a goal of the May
meeting might be to establish a workplan to address the 
>topics discussed
there.  For example an agenda built around President Rousseff's five 
>norms/principles,
plus ICANN and IANA reform, might see...
>A recommendation for a working group to refine principles on network
neutrality.

>A working group to develop an institutional framework around the IANA
function.

>A discussion on ICANN reform, but more of a watching brief; a process to
monitor and report on the 
>organization's progress responding to the
processes established by the Affirmation of Commitments 
>(AoC) with a view
to releasing it from all ties to a single govt., with parallel discussion about 
>appropriate future oversight once the intent of the AoC achieved.
>A process established to develop broad human rights framework, perhaps
building on what was 
>described during the IGF session on surveillance as
the "Swedish Model" (this might begin to 
>address Rousseff's first
principle "Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect
for 
>human rights.")

>etc.



To me that looks like an excellent agenda!

 

All the
best, 


Luca

 



Luca Belli
Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/795b2682/attachment.htm>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Nov  7 03:49:19 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:49:19 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] MIPOC
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>
 <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>
 <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>
 <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
 <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net>
 <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net>
 <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>
 <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>
 <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
 <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org>
 <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi,

to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).

For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy".

However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. 

MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy. 


wolfgang


Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake
Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran
Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime
 
Hi John,

On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote:

> On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> Parminder - 
>>> 
>>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?
>>> 
>> John
>> 
>> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote
>> 
>> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. "
>> 
>> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. 
> 

I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas.  But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet".  We've had 8 years experience with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is not day-to-day technical and operational matters.  Clearly the I* etc. are not safe from these proposals.

I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new "institutional solution" (UN body?).  As would the IANA function, global address pool, etc.  As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc.  I guess you'd still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations would in future likely be sent down from the new institution.  Probably coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of the institution on stage, etc.

Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF.  I guess that means this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity.  It will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the competent agency.

And somehow all this must be paid for.  UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.)

Not good.

Best,

Adam



> Thanks for the reminder.
> 
> So on the question of terminology - 
>>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet 
>>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?
>>> 
> these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"...
> 
> Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of 
> norms and customs on the Internet?   (e.g.  there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN
> and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational
> matters)
> 
> /John
> 
> Disclaimers:  My views alone.   No public policy proposed in this email.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov  7 06:47:47 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:47:47 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@ser
 ver1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <2E9D9BED-A41A-4C27-9D8A-4AD3E40E80A5@ciroap.org>

On 7 Nov 2013, at 8:49 am, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE> wrote:

> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. 

Note also the quite similar proposal that I put to the WGEC for a Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council, which would be established under the auspices of the IGF. The IGF in plenary session could discuss and agree by rough consensus to forward any proposal to the MIPC for its support. Those proposals could be initiated by IGF Dynamic Coalitions or (to be created) working groups, or by external bodies that hold Open Fora at the IGF, such as the OECD, Council of Europe, etc. 

This would require reform to the IGF so that its plenary sessions have a more deliberative capacity, and I can expand upon this as necessary, but since the main reform involved here is the new MIPC, I'm going to jump ahead and focus on that instead. 

The MIPC would be composed of equal numbers of self-selected representatives from each of the stakeholder groups (civil society, private sector, government), plus the cross-cutting technical and academic community constituency, and observers from intergovernmental organisations. They would meet both as a plenary body and as private caucuses for each stakeholder group/constituency. The purpose of the plenary meetings is to bring together points on which all the stakeholder groups can reach consensus, and the purpose of the caucus meetings is because each stakeholder group has its own preferred methods of negotiation and decision-making. A proposal can be sent back and forth between the plenary and the caucuses as many times as necessary to establish either that an overall rough consensus can be reached, or that it can't. 

For a proposal to be finalised as a recommendation of the IGF (note: not "of the MIPC"), the MIPC has to reach an overall rough consensus on it as assessed by the MIPC chair, which includes rough consensus within each stakeholder group as assessed by the caucus chair. The recommendations would be non-binding, though they could call for the development of binding rules where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/b3772165/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MIPC.png
Type: image/png
Size: 66096 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/b3772165/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/b3772165/attachment.sig>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Thu Nov  7 08:21:25 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:51:25 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>
	<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>
	<0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au>
	<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>
	<E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
	<527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net>
	<594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net>
	<527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net>
	<CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>
	<E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>
	<527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
	<18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org>
	<ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDOAvp2+BRwLyQn0PExpcbVge6g_jBvfDQ6feu1HJ3jHw@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting proposal, Wolfgang, and also tying  in to our own proposal to
make the IGF a clearing house. By why not give this new function to the
MAG, rather than setting up a separate body. After all, shouldn't what
MIPOC discusses also feed into the IGF agenda quite substantively then?

Best,
Anja


On 7 November 2013 14:19, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as
> it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public
> policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to
> day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal
> for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain
> where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts.
> As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new
> gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new
> gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day
> operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly
> politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security
> protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there
> is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and
> collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early
> engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that
> different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).
>
> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which
> still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy".
>
> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house
> which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under
> discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems
> on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder
> Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but
> the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings.
> It does not discuss policy issues.
>
> MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of
> the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF
> discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which
> where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons
> but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed
> (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical
> organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation
> of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and
> transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to
> move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis
> and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have
> identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy.
>
>
> wolfgang
>
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake
> Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran
> Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; &lt,
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
> tomorrow lunchtime
>
> Hi John,
>
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:
> >>> Parminder -
> >>>
> >>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?
> >>>
> >> John
> >>
> >> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote
> >>
> >> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
> issues. "
> >>
> >> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet
> governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact
> international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of
> the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation
> discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them.
> >
>
> I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas.
>  But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it
> says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day
> or technical operations of the Internet".  We've had 8 years experience
> with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is
> not day-to-day technical and operational matters.  Clearly the I* etc. are
> not safe from these proposals.
>
> I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address
> Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both
> policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new
> "institutional solution" (UN body?).  As would the IANA function, global
> address pool, etc.  As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation
> (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc.  I guess you'd
> still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs'
> bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations
> would in future likely be sent down from the new institution.  Probably
> coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution:
> The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of
> the institution on stage, etc.
>
> Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation
> of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after
> Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF.  I guess that means
> this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity.  It
> will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the
> competent agency.
>
> And somehow all this must be paid for.  UN is slashing budgets, the ITU
> has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.)
>
> Not good.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> > Thanks for the reminder.
> >
> > So on the question of terminology -
> >>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet
> >>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?
> >>>
> > these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet
> policy development issues"...
> >
> > Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when
> referring to matters of
> > norms and customs on the Internet?   (e.g.  there are likely aspects of
> globalization of ICANN
> > and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects
> which are operational
> > matters)
> >
> > /John
> >
> > Disclaimers:  My views alone.   No public policy proposed in this email.
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Dr. 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/20131107/f37d850a/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Nov  7 08:50:43 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:50:43 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>
 <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>
 <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>
 <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
 <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net>
 <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net>
 <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>
 <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>
 <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
 <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org>
 <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A48B8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Wolfgang, working with you, in what was my 'B' scenario basically:

Granting difficulty on drawing lines across multi-dimensional IG spaces, your alternative of setting up a select few Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council members who 'would not take decisions but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed (and decided)' seems both too limited and too inevitably politicized to point of stasis.  I suggest.

If we were to figuratively downgrade (for now) the 'council' on top of IGF to just 'IGF'...i.e. people working for IGF who review what all is going on, stay neutral, and make initial forays into areas for further inquiry by various interested IG parties.

Meaning, think OECD staff positions, not Ministers making recommendations.

The practice of governments seconding to OECD staff for exposure and experience, and to help out, could readily be further expanded for IGF, helping keep costs down and talent rotation up. 
The very few UN long-term staff engaged would only come in through the biz as usual process that led to Chengetai; who would have the responsibility of orchestrating which offers from cs, governments, and industry for assistance to accept.   Plus of course if ICANN, I orgs, tech community, cs, ps, whomever, wishes to offer human resources to IGF, then Chengetai or whomever can sort out just as similar offers of assistance are channelled around IGF presently. 

This makes the UN-first folks happy, keeps the MSH model as only viable one for N-dimensional IG issues, and can be done on the cheap, without the guaranteed political infighting the oversight council approach might take.

Comments?

Lee

PS: Wolfgang, perhaps what you meant to say, was that a Multistakeholder Internet Policy Advisory Council" (MIPOAC) would be set up by IGF to review - IGF processes and procedures on a regular basis, and report back to interested parties? ; )  (Meaning not above IGF, but below or alongside the evolving institution.)
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:49 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran
Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [governance] MIPOC

Hi,

to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).

For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy".

However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues.

MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy.


wolfgang


Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake
Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran
Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

Hi John,

On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote:

> On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> Parminder -
>>>
>>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?
>>>
>> John
>>
>> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote
>>
>> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. "
>>
>> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them.
>

I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas.  But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet".  We've had 8 years experience with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is not day-to-day technical and operational matters.  Clearly the I* etc. are not safe from these proposals.

I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new "institutional solution" (UN body?).  As would the IANA function, global address pool, etc.  As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc.  I guess you'd still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations would in future likely be sent down from the new institution.  Probably coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of the institution on stage, etc.

Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF.  I guess that means this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity.  It will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the competent agency.

And somehow all this must be paid for.  UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.)

Not good.

Best,

Adam



> Thanks for the reminder.
>
> So on the question of terminology -
>>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet
>>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?
>>>
> these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"...
>
> Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of
> norms and customs on the Internet?   (e.g.  there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN
> and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational
> matters)
>
> /John
>
> Disclaimers:  My views alone.   No public policy proposed in this email.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t





From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov  7 09:43:32 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:43:32 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDOAvp2+BRwLyQn0PExpcbVge6g_jBvfDQ6feu1HJ3jHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@ser
 ver1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJqNAHDOAvp2+BRwLyQn0PExpcbVge6g_jBvfDQ6feu1HJ3jHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87913219-94F6-4521-8A9B-23B8A019E204@ciroap.org>

On 7 Nov 2013, at 1:21 pm, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> Interesting proposal, Wolfgang, and also tying  in to our own proposal to make the IGF a clearing house. By why not give this new function to the MAG, rather than setting up a separate body. After all, shouldn't what MIPOC discusses also feed into the IGF agenda quite substantively then?

Some would argue that the MAG is unable to work effectively, so unless it can be redeemed, it would be better to start afresh.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/7661a1fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/7661a1fe/attachment.sig>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Nov  7 09:15:06 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 15:15:06 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] AW: [governance] MIPOC
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>
 <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>
 <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>
 <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
 <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net>
 <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net>
 <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>
 <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>
 <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
 <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org>
 <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp>
 <2E9D9BED-A41A-4C27-9D8A-4AD3E40E80A5@ciroap.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

thx. jeremy. yes i know your propsal and it has my full support. my point is to define tha mandate closer to a clearing-house. more comments later. btw, your proposal is also reflectedvin thecwgec quest. summary. lg w


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org]
Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 12:47
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Adam Peake; John Curran; parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; bestbits
Betreff: Re: [governance] MIPOC
 
On 7 Nov 2013, at 8:49 am, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE> wrote:

> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. 

Note also the quite similar proposal that I put to the WGEC for a Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council, which would be established under the auspices of the IGF. The IGF in plenary session could discuss and agree by rough consensus to forward any proposal to the MIPC for its support. Those proposals could be initiated by IGF Dynamic Coalitions or (to be created) working groups, or by external bodies that hold Open Fora at the IGF, such as the OECD, Council of Europe, etc. 

This would require reform to the IGF so that its plenary sessions have a more deliberative capacity, and I can expand upon this as necessary, but since the main reform involved here is the new MIPC, I'm going to jump ahead and focus on that instead. 

The MIPC would be composed of equal numbers of self-selected representatives from each of the stakeholder groups (civil society, private sector, government), plus the cross-cutting technical and academic community constituency, and observers from intergovernmental organisations. They would meet both as a plenary body and as private caucuses for each stakeholder group/constituency. The purpose of the plenary meetings is to bring together points on which all the stakeholder groups can reach consensus, and the purpose of the caucus meetings is because each stakeholder group has its own preferred methods of negotiation and decision-making. A proposal can be sent back and forth between the plenary and the caucuses as many times as necessary to establish either that an overall rough consensus can be reached, or that it can't. 

For a proposal to be finalised as a recommendation of the IGF (note: not "of the MIPC"), the MIPC has to reach an overall rough consensus on it as assessed by the MIPC chair, which includes rough consensus within each stakeholder group as assessed by the caucus chair. The recommendations would be non-binding, though they could call for the development of binding rules where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.



From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Thu Nov  7 10:40:45 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:10:45 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <87913219-94F6-4521-8A9B-23B8A019E204@ciroap.org>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>
	<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>
	<0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au>
	<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>
	<E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
	<527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net>
	<594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net>
	<527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net>
	<CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>
	<E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>
	<527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
	<18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org>
	<ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAJqNAHDOAvp2+BRwLyQn0PExpcbVge6g_jBvfDQ6feu1HJ3jHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87913219-94F6-4521-8A9B-23B8A019E204@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBSRoAZ7Rdv_KGHxLWyNTBZ8qaRFxvL6HTr3E0AM42iAA@mail.gmail.com>

The idea is to redeem it.

And that would be required even in Wolfgang's proposal. There wouldn't be
any point either in having another body on top of/besides an ineffective
MAG if the MAG will actually be the body that supposedly has to translate
into program recommendations of that other body.

Either way, we need a MAG that works well.

Anja


On 7 November 2013 20:13, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 7 Nov 2013, at 1:21 pm, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>
> Interesting proposal, Wolfgang, and also tying  in to our own proposal to
> make the IGF a clearing house. By why not give this new function to the
> MAG, rather than setting up a separate body. After all, shouldn't what
> MIPOC discusses also feed into the IGF agenda quite substantively then?
>
>
> Some would argue that the MAG is unable to work effectively, so unless it
> can be redeemed, it would be better to start afresh.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>


-- 
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/20131107/f6b311ba/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Nov  7 12:05:23 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:05:23 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBSRoAZ7Rdv_KGHxLWyNTBZ8qaRFxvL6HTr3E0AM42iAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>
	<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au>
	<0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au>
	<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>
	<E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net>
	<527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net>
	<594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net>
	<527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net>
	<CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net>
	<E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org>
	<527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net>
	<18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org>
	<ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAJqNAHDOAvp2+BRwLyQn0PExpcbVge6g_jBvfDQ6feu1HJ3jHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87913219-94F6-4521-8A9B-23B8A019E204@ciroap.org>,<CAJqNAHBSRoAZ7Rdv_KGHxLWyNTBZ8qaRFxvL6HTr3E0AM42iAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A49A8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Trying again to be helpful: (really!)

So MAG has more staff support, including (mainly) donated as per the OECD template, whereby those staff positions are coveted enough that most get filled by 'seconded' labor, hardly anyone gets in on UN dime since org has so few, and has harder time supporting specific IG policy functions on a general budget line (versus spending more on refugees or WHO...or any number of other line items).

Functions of MAG now that there is a bit of MSH staff back-up, extend to functions suggested by Wolfgang.

Enhanced Cooperation Solved! : )

Lee


________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Anja Kovacs [anja at internetdemocracy.in]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:40 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: IGC; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Adam Peake; John Curran; parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC

The idea is to redeem it.

And that would be required even in Wolfgang's proposal. There wouldn't be any point either in having another body on top of/besides an ineffective MAG if the MAG will actually be the body that supposedly has to translate into program recommendations of that other body.

Either way, we need a MAG that works well.

Anja


On 7 November 2013 20:13, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
On 7 Nov 2013, at 1:21 pm, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:

Interesting proposal, Wolfgang, and also tying  in to our own proposal to make the IGF a clearing house. By why not give this new function to the MAG, rather than setting up a separate body. After all, shouldn't what MIPOC discusses also feed into the IGF agenda quite substantively then?

Some would argue that the MAG is unable to work effectively, so unless it can be redeemed, it would be better to start afresh.

--

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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@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.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.




--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/43b80782/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Thu Nov  7 13:11:51 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:11:51 -0500
Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits
 strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime)
In-Reply-To: <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <F712ED04-CFC9-493A-B3D7-938005C9CA78@istaff.org>

On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> And somehow all this must be paid for.  UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.)

Presently the critical Internet resource registries are paid for by
those who directly make use of the registry services (in the case of
DNS, registries and registrars; in the case of IP addresses, the RIRs
collectively pay into ICANN; the IETF protocol parameters are seen as
a nominal cost which is absorbed by the system.)

If we're talking about additional mechanisms needed to keep the various
infrastructure registries running, why wouldn't that be also borne by 
the direct registry "customers"? Or are you thinking about costs from
additional mechanisms for discussing Internet public policy matters in 
general?

/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone...(No discussion of additional costs or 
coverage of same has been held by the ARIN community or ARIN Board.)


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Nov  7 13:34:34 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:34:34 +0900
Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best
 Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime)
In-Reply-To: <F712ED04-CFC9-493A-B3D7-938005C9CA78@istaff.org>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <F712ED04-CFC9-493A-B3D7-938005C9CA78@istaff.
 org>
Message-ID: <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp>


On Nov 8, 2013, at 3:11 AM, John Curran wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
>> And somehow all this must be paid for.  UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.)
> 
> Presently the critical Internet resource registries are paid for by
> those who directly make use of the registry services (in the case of
> DNS, registries and registrars; in the case of IP addresses, the RIRs
> collectively pay into ICANN; the IETF protocol parameters are seen as
> a nominal cost which is absorbed by the system.)
> 


well the RFC editor function is hardly nominal.  And someone from this new institutional arrangement will have to find that $1 million (or whatever it is now).  

Don't get me wrong. I think the proposals Parminder's suggesting are completely unworkable, have not been thought through, naive, serve only to promote the interests of a few governments, and no one else: certainly not civil society.  Which is why when Parminder asked people a month or so ago to sign on to a statement promoting those ideas many of us said they were not supportable.  That statement received no support on any of the lists civil society uses to coordinate participation in Internet policy discussions (not that the lists are representative of the whole of civil society.) 


> If we're talking about additional mechanisms needed to keep the various
> infrastructure registries running, why wouldn't that be also borne by 
> the direct registry "customers"? Or are you thinking about costs from
> additional mechanisms for discussing Internet public policy matters in 
> general?
> 

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I think the proposal for these new mechanisms absolutely wrong. I tried to explain why.

Adam




> /John
> 
> Disclaimers:  My views alone...(No discussion of additional costs or 
> coverage of same has been held by the ARIN community or ARIN Board.)
> 


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov  7 14:23:46 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:23:46 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Last day for submissions to European Commission
 consultation on how the Internet should be governed
Message-ID: <567607F0-ADD1-43EF-B98B-E5635F034D65@ciroap.org>

This European Commission consultation, on how the Internet should be governed and what Europe's role should be, closes tomorrow 9 November:

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/internet-governance-i-want-your-views

I did not have time to coordinate a Best Bits response, but I have referred back to some of our Best Bits outputs in my personal submission at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/content/no-one-model-one-common-issue-and-suitable-forum-2014 (which I originally wrote as a response to a thread on EDRI's list).

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/9342bc07/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/9342bc07/attachment.sig>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Thu Nov  7 15:05:00 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:05:00 -0500
Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best
 Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgpDG_c0gJwhwMHBUvgpDsit=QPokCG3Vmdo04q=hCbxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <F712ED04-CFC9-493A-B3D7-938005C9CA78@istaff.org> <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp> <CACAaNxgpDG_c0gJwhwMHBUvgpDsit=QPokCG3Vmdo04q=hCbxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D3F6E35F-17F3-4F7E-BD41-45BBFADD2AEF@istaff.org>

On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:50 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think JC was referring to the Protocols and Parameters stuff that
> IANA keeps track of for the IETF.  That is very low cost stuff.

Correct.

> The RFC editor function isn't paid for by ICANN AFAIK.  I had thought
> it was paid for by ISOC.

It is paid for by ISOC; I believe that several of the RIRs (including ARIN) 
generally designate their ISOC membership contribution to this purpose... <https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/isoc.html>

FYI,
/John



From jcurran at istaff.org  Thu Nov  7 15:22:50 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:22:50 -0500
Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best
 Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime)
In-Reply-To: <3F4F3EC2-2309-4DA4-9BB8-E4F1F573B82D@isoc.org>
References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <B01F8FA1-DAB7-4738-B5A8-CAB048E96FB7@difference.com.au> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjjntv5W=j8-ZKd9CcM4c9Wd7dfxHNw2pBgcGPJhgs-ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <ED5CCEB8-0A3F-4D36-8A06-E285D85896C7@glocom.ac.jp> <F712ED04-CFC9-493A-B3D7-938005C9CA78@istaff.org> <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp> <CACAaNxgpDG_c0gJwhwMHBUvgpDsit=QPokCG3Vmdo04q=hCbxQ@mail.gmail.com> <D3F6E35F-17F3-4F7E-BD41-45BBFADD2AEF@istaff.org> <3F4F3EC2-2309-4DA4-9BB8-E4F1F573B82D@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <E58465AC-D198-4BA2-9101-FEF9FE2A1316@istaff.org>

On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier at isoc.org> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:05 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:50 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think JC was referring to the Protocols and Parameters stuff that
>>> IANA keeps track of for the IETF.  That is very low cost stuff.
>> 
>> Correct.
>> 
>>> The RFC editor function isn't paid for by ICANN AFAIK.  I had thought
>>> it was paid for by ISOC.
>> 
>> It is paid for by ISOC; I believe that several of the RIRs (including ARIN) 
>> generally designate their ISOC membership contribution to this purpose... <https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/isoc.html>
> 
> The RFC Editor services are paid for through the IETF Budget, which derives its revenues through Meeting Registration Fees, Sponsors and ISOC.  RFCs are assets of the IETF Trust, and are copyrights of the IETF Trust and the document authors.

Thanks Ray!  Just for clarity - there are not any costs to IETF and/or 
ISOC for the IANA registry services provided by ICANN?

/John



From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Fri Nov  8 02:18:12 2013
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 02:18:12 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MAG Renewal
In-Reply-To: <BF4414B0-B34E-466C-823D-5D08DC051D2D@gmail.com>
References: <C74416C2-02BD-4E8E-A981-6A13F46B11AE@unog.ch> <CA+YNoKg4WfogBLYZHUSAqe0H+94S1JMpHs3_H+=ad6pZn8Ms4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <BF4414B0-B34E-466C-823D-5D08DC051D2D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwr=VanWdh8_77F6GTLrGH+An1nCw-FnD-r73ugx3P2Ezg@mail.gmail.com>

+1 Sala. If we are working for the common good of all, this is the way to
go.

Some Questions:
1. How easy is it for the consolidated CS to reach a consensus?
2. Do all CS groupings represent the same interests?

Regards

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva
twitter.com/lordmwesh
google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh


On 7 November 2013 18:12, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Dear IGC, Best bits, APC, Diplo, Internet Rights and Principles Coalition,
>
> I am not subscribed to other lists so have opted to list the coordinators
> of these lists instead. In light of the MAG renewal and selections, I would
> like to invite you to consider whether the idea for a joint NomCom where
> civil society can channel selections in a consolidated form.
>
> There should also be a consolidated framework of expected standards of
> behaviour and deliverables for MAG civil society representatives and in
> matters of accountability to the civil society at large.
>
> If it is too late to consider this for this round, it is still something
> that collectively civil society can communicate to UNDESA if there is
> consensus for this. This will ensure no "gaming" of systems and will demand
> accountability and encourage an open and transparent process.
>
> For the Business community, they are in consensus that the ICC is to
> facilitate the process. Whilst for civil society there is no consensus on a
> any single body to represent the selection process, I feel that it is
> something that should at least be discussed.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>
> Here comes the MAG renewal message.
>
> I hope IGC will work on this quickly.
>
> izumi
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Chengetai Masango <cmasango at unog.ch>
> Date: 2013/11/7
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal
> To: MAG List IGF <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on
> the MAG renewal process <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/125-preparatory-process/1459-mag-renewal-2014>for 2014.
> The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*.
>
> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder
> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating
>  the selection process would be appreciated.
>
> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement  to your
> respective stakeholder groups.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chengetai
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131108/e3fff435/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Fri Nov  8 02:53:14 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:53:14 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Last day for submissions to European Commission
 consultation on how the Internet should be governed
In-Reply-To: <567607F0-ADD1-43EF-B98B-E5635F034D65@ciroap.org>
References: <567607F0-ADD1-43EF-B98B-E5635F034D65@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <DE9B7B7A-A869-4BDE-BA87-383F180EF993@uzh.ch>

Jeremy

Looks good.  But you could have raised this with her too:
EU should create own spy agency, Reding says  http://euobserver.com/justice/121979
Prism et al could turn out to be a great stimulant to EU institution building, industrial policies, etc.

Bill

On Nov 7, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> This European Commission consultation, on how the Internet should be governed and what Europe's role should be, closes tomorrow 9 November:
> 
> http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/internet-governance-i-want-your-views
> 
> I did not have time to coordinate a Best Bits response, but I have referred back to some of our Best Bits outputs in my personal submission at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/content/no-one-model-one-common-issue-and-suitable-forum-2014 (which I originally wrote as a response to a thread on EDRI's list).
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 
> 

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131108/56a6269b/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Fri Nov  8 04:23:39 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:23:39 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MAG Renewal
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBnh2bm0R4EttUUh9tRu90xwx7XR46WQdFrRAxcziC7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C74416C2-02BD-4E8E-A981-6A13F46B11AE@unog.ch> <CA+YNoKg4WfogBLYZHUSAqe0H+94S1JMpHs3_H+=ad6pZn8Ms4w@mail.gmail.com> <BF4414B0-B34E-466C-823D-5D08DC051D2D@gmail.com> <CAEhPqwr=VanWdh8_77F6GTLrGH+An1nCw-FnD-r73ugx3P2Ezg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiBnh2bm0R4EttUUh9tRu90xwx7XR46WQdFrRAxcziC7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <527CAD9B.9090803@gold.ac.uk>

Dear all

For my part, personally and pending responses from IRP Coalition members 
who can provide their input too here, I welcome this suggestion.

The MAG needs to be supported, redeemed, and provided with new "juice".

If a viable alternative presents itself then let's hear it but in the 
meantime for the coming year an open nomination process across these 
groups identifying as civil society for new MAG members strikes me as a 
constructive way forward.

best
M


On 08/11/2013 09:13, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com 
> <mailto:Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>> wrote:
>
>     +1 Sala. If we are working for the common good of all, this is the
>     way to go.
>
>     Some Questions:
>     1. How easy is it for the consolidated CS to reach a consensus?
>
>
> [Sala: This is a very good question. The reality is that no civil 
> society organisation can purport to represent the views of all civil 
> society. However the critical thing to note is that in this instance 
> this is not asking for consensus of views on substantive policy 
> matters but are more to do with administrative matters pertaining to 
> selection of civil society representatives. I am not sure how open 
> they will feel about consensus amongst civil society organisations on 
> fielding names for committees such as the MAG etc. But it's worth a 
> shot. ]
>
>
>     2. Do all CS groupings represent the same interests?
>
> [Sala: They clearly don't and would be governed by their respective 
> articles or objectives as we are governed by the Charter, However, 
> because we share more common features than other stakeholder groups, 
> it makes sense to have cohesive collaborative framework for things like:-
>
> 1) MS Selection processes;
> 2)Joint Initiatives - Advocacy on mutual issues and priority areas
>
>
>     Regards
>
>     ______________________
>     Mwendwa Kivuva
>     twitter.com/lordmwesh <http://twitter.com/lordmwesh>
>     google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh
>
>
>     On 7 November 2013 18:12, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>     <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>     <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>          Dear IGC, Best bits, APC, Diplo, Internet Rights and
>         Principles Coalition,
>
>         I am not subscribed to other lists so have opted to list the
>         coordinators of these lists instead. In light of the MAG
>         renewal and selections, I would like to invite you to consider
>         whether the idea for a joint NomCom where civil society can
>         channel selections in a consolidated form.
>
>         There should also be a consolidated framework of expected
>         standards of behaviour and deliverables for MAG civil society
>         representatives and in matters of accountability to the civil
>         society at large.
>
>         If it is too late to consider this for this round, it is still
>         something that collectively civil society can communicate to
>         UNDESA if there is consensus for this. This will ensure no
>         "gaming" of systems and will demand accountability and
>         encourage an open and transparent process.
>
>         For the Business community, they are in consensus that the ICC
>         is to facilitate the process. Whilst for civil society there
>         is no consensus on a any single body to represent the
>         selection process, I feel that it is something that should at
>         least be discussed.
>
>         Kind Regards,
>         Sala
>
>         Sent from my iPad
>
>         On Nov 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org
>         <mailto:iza at anr.org>> wrote:
>
>>         Here comes the MAG renewal message.
>>
>>         I hope IGC will work on this quickly.
>>
>>         izumi
>>
>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>         From: *Chengetai Masango* <cmasango at unog.ch
>>         <mailto:cmasango at unog.ch>>
>>         Date: 2013/11/7
>>         Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal
>>         To: MAG List IGF <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>         <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>>
>>
>>
>>         Dear All,
>>
>>         Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a
>>         statement on the MAG renewal process
>>         <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/125-preparatory-process/1459-mag-renewal-2014>for 2014.
>>         The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December
>>         2013*.
>>
>>         For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a
>>         stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group)
>>         some documentation stating  the selection process would be
>>         appreciated.
>>
>>         I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement
>>          to your respective stakeholder groups.
>>
>>         Best regards,
>>
>>         Chengetai
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Igfmaglist mailing list
>>         Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>>         http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>                              >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>         Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>         Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>         Japan
>>         www.anr.org <http://www.anr.org>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>

-- 
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131108/71a6d44d/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Nov  8 12:58:00 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 18:58:00 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MAG Renewal
In-Reply-To: <527CAD9B.9090803@gold.ac.uk>
References: <C74416C2-02BD-4E8E-A981-6A13F46B11AE@unog.ch>
 <CA+YNoKg4WfogBLYZHUSAqe0H+94S1JMpHs3_H+=ad6pZn8Ms4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <BF4414B0-B34E-466C-823D-5D08DC051D2D@gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwr=VanWdh8_77F6GTLrGH+An1nCw-FnD-r73ugx3P2Ezg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiBnh2bm0R4EttUUh9tRu90xwx7XR46WQdFrRAxcziC7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <527CAD9B.9090803@gold.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <mailman.87.1642081822.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131108/bcb544f9/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Nov  8 13:26:57 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:26:57 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [tpp-allies] Deadline Monday: Sign-on: NSA/USTR
 surveillance of advocacy groups?
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-187967234-44094240-2013.11.08-13.23.10--carolina.rossini#gmail.com@listserver.citizen.org>
References: <LYRIS-187967234-44094240-2013.11.08-13.23.10--carolina.rossini#gmail.com@listserver.citizen.org>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeGoee92ZzRaFY15M+PB8gPD9UNGAk8Ti-fNW8FagdytQ@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jessa Boehner <jboehner at citizen.org>
Date: Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM
Subject: [tpp-allies] Deadline Monday: Sign-on: NSA/USTR surveillance of
advocacy groups?
To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>


Dear all –



Just a reminder to please send an e-mail to me (jboehner at citizen.org)
*before* *Monday, November 11 at noon* if your organization wants to sign
on to the below letter to the NSA and USTR.


Thanks,
Jessa

*_________________________________________*

*Jessa Boehner *|* International Program Associate *

Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch

215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Washington DC, 20003 USA

jboehner at citizen.org <http://jboehner at citizen.org%20> &
www.tradewatch.org<http://www.tradewatch.org%20>

Ph: + 202.454.5106, Fax: + 202.547.7392





*From:* Robert Weissman [mailto:rweissman at citizen.org]
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:19 AM
*To:* tpp-allies
*Subject:* [tpp-allies] Sign-on: NSA/USTR surveillance of advocacy groups?



Dear Friends,



Many of you have probably seen this past Sunday New York Times story
describing the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office as a “customer” of the
NSA.



The story noted that the NSA's "huge investment in [data] collection is
driven by pressure from the agency’s “customers,” in government jargon, not
only at the White House, Pentagon, F.B.I. and C.I.A., but also spread
across the Departments of State and Energy, Homeland Security and Commerce,
and the United States Trade Representative."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too-minuscule-for-all-consuming-nsa.html?hp&_r=0



Among other disturbing issues, this raises the question of whether the NSA
has been involved in surveillance of any of the many organizations working
to ensure that U.S. trade policy serves the broad public interest rather
than narrow mercantile concerns.



The brief sign-on letter below is addressed to NSA Director Keith Alexander
and USTR Michael Froman. It asks them directly for assurances that our
organizations are not under surveillance.



*Please send your organizational sign on to Jessa Boehner --
jboehner at citizen.org <jboehner at citizen.org> -- by Monday, November 11 at
noon.*



Best,



Robert Weissman

President

Public Citizen







Dear General Alexander and Ambassador Froman,



The New York Times reports on November 3 that wide-reaching efforts by the
National Security Agency to collect data are driven in part by the agency's
"customers" -- a range of other government agencies that includes the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.



In light of this and other disclosures, we are writing to ask if the NSA,
or other national security agencies, have surveilled any U.S. organizations
or individuals advocating on U.S. trade policy. We ask you to disclose any
such surveillance, whether or not it occurred at the request of USTR;
whether or not it involved communications with foreign nationals; and
whether or not it occurred within U.S. borders.



Core American principles ranging from the right to privacy to the right to
petition our government are at stake. Simply put, we believe that our
organizations -- as well as all others advocating on trade policy matters
-- have right to an assurance that their operations are not under
surveillance by U.S. government agencies. We trust you agree.



We look forward to your reply.









---

You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: jboehner at citizen.org.

To unsubscribe click here:
http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=169119537.98a4a52403592a61ebd0eac697987691&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=44081176

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to
leave-44081176-169119537.98a4a52403592a61ebd0eac697987691 at listserver.citizen.org

---

You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.

To unsubscribe click here:
http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=44094240

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to
leave-44094240-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131108/82dce1c8/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Nov  8 23:24:20 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 05:24:20 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for
 Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>

Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
to the coordinators of the IGC 


I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
potentially highly problematic.

Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
least, shaping and directing that capacity. 

People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that
could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests.

For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such
as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear
relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.

Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
where a US government agency is among the funders.


For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship,
I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention
of entering into any such funding relationships in the future.

Greetings,
Norbert



Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
> through the US State Department, see below:
> 
> 
> 
>  Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals:
> Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia
> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
> 
> November 8, 2013
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
>  Department of State
> 
> *Public Notice*
> 
> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals:
> *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia
> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
> 
> *SUMMARY*
> 
> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule
> of law in Europe and Eurasia.
> 
> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
> *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
> order to obtain a username and password to submit your application.
> For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission
> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at *
> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
> *
> 
> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
> 
> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
> following issues:
> 
> *Moldova*
> 
> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):*
> DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in
> Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and
> political conditions. This program should focus on one of three
> areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals
> should focus on more than one minority group and may include the
> Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities.
> Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they
> will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than
> one of the categories.
> 
> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and
> national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities
> could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic
> leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to
> participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities
> for participants to network with other minority leaders both within
> Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting
> training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights
> and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills.
> 
> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova.
> The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance,
> and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth
> activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise
> awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals
> should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint
> activities.
> 
> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps,
> internship opportunities, or language training. The program should
> focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational
> opportunities and outcomes.
> 
> *Turkey*
> 
> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil
> society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’
> awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the
> political process. The program should support civil society in
> advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and
> protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their
> right to participate in the political process. The program should
> build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring
> together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized
> groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and
> government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of
> civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these
> coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on
> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government
> accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals
> should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to
> help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for
> political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
> strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in
> Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society
> groups.
> 
> *Azerbaijan*
> 
> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will
> encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote
> an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system
> of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil
> society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting
> civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach.
> Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote
> democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of
> independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could
> include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the
> capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in
> key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy;
> support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive
> debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations;
> linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability
> and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants
> to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots
> organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or
> fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful
> proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong
> knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an
> established ability to work with regional independent civil society.
> 
> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
> 
> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions
> (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
> .
> 
> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
> 
> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section
> up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to
> use the given space effectively.
> 
> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per
> country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or
> themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request
> less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling
> ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.*
> 
> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov*
> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov*
> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission;
> and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the
> solicitation and this document.
> 
> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals
> have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov*
> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov*
> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
> conversion processes.*
> 
> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of
> State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing
> proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed.
> 
> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov*
> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
> 
> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
> 
> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
> organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships,
> will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic,
> research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed
> competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science-
> related projects unless they have an explicit component related to
> the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on
> commercial law or economic development will be rated as
> non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost
> sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and
> budget narrative.
> 
> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for
> any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist
> organization, whether or not elected members of government.
> 
> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance
> with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
> 
> This request for proposals will appear on
> *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s website,
> *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
> 
> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
> 
> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel
> free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov*
> <SpitzerEM at State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State Department
> officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas -
> may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire
> proposal review process is completed.
> 
> 
>  ------------------------------
> 
> Stay connected with the State Department:


From ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Nov  9 00:41:09 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:41:09 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding
 Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
In-Reply-To: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
References: <CAJwbTiByYvHMNH6-g_4aUPUeCGFbEMW_rLfkrZQG=UaBePzX0g@mail.gmail.com> <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill>
Message-ID: <A01F7C74-DF15-43E2-8083-ECEA625699A7@cafonso.ca>

I agree with your quite relevant points, Norbert. Given the circumstances, I am surprised by the suggestion to engage with such funding.

frt rgds

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 09/11/2013, at 05:24, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
> to the coordinators of the IGC 
> 
> 
> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
> potentially highly problematic.
> 
> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
> least, shaping and directing that capacity. 
> 
> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that
> could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests.
> 
> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such
> as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear
> relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
> 
> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
> where a US government agency is among the funders.
> 
> 
> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship,
> I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention
> of entering into any such funding relationships in the future.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>> through the US State Department, see below:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals:
>> Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia
>> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>> 
>> November 8, 2013
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Department of State
>> 
>> *Public Notice*
>> 
>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals:
>> *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia
>> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>> 
>> *SUMMARY*
>> 
>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule
>> of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>> 
>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>> *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your application.
>> For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission
>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at *
>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>> *
>> 
>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>> 
>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>> following issues:
>> 
>> *Moldova*
>> 
>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):*
>> DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in
>> Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and
>> political conditions. This program should focus on one of three
>> areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals
>> should focus on more than one minority group and may include the
>> Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities.
>> Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they
>> will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than
>> one of the categories.
>> 
>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and
>> national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities
>> could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic
>> leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to
>> participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities
>> for participants to network with other minority leaders both within
>> Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting
>> training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights
>> and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills.
>> 
>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova.
>> The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance,
>> and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth
>> activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise
>> awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals
>> should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint
>> activities.
>> 
>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving
>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps,
>> internship opportunities, or language training. The program should
>> focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational
>> opportunities and outcomes.
>> 
>> *Turkey*
>> 
>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil
>> society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’
>> awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the
>> political process. The program should support civil society in
>> advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and
>> protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their
>> right to participate in the political process. The program should
>> build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring
>> together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized
>> groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and
>> government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of
>> civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these
>> coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on
>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government
>> accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals
>> should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to
>> help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for
>> political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>> strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in
>> Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society
>> groups.
>> 
>> *Azerbaijan*
>> 
>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will
>> encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote
>> an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system
>> of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil
>> society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting
>> civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach.
>> Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote
>> democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of
>> independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could
>> include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the
>> capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in
>> key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy;
>> support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive
>> debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations;
>> linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability
>> and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s
>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants
>> to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots
>> organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or
>> fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful
>> proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong
>> knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an
>> established ability to work with regional independent civil society.
>> 
>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>> 
>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions
>> (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>> .
>> 
>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>> 
>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section
>> up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to
>> use the given space effectively.
>> 
>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per
>> country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or
>> themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request
>> less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling
>> ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.*
>> 
>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov*
>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission;
>> and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the
>> solicitation and this document.
>> 
>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals
>> have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov*
>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov*
>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>> conversion processes.*
>> 
>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of
>> State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing
>> proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed.
>> 
>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov*
>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>> 
>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>> 
>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>> organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships,
>> will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic,
>> research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed
>> competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science-
>> related projects unless they have an explicit component related to
>> the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on
>> commercial law or economic development will be rated as
>> non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost
>> sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and
>> budget narrative.
>> 
>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for
>> any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist
>> organization, whether or not elected members of government.
>> 
>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance
>> with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>> 
>> This request for proposals will appear on
>> *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s website,
>> *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>> 
>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>> 
>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel
>> free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov*
>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State Department
>> officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas -
>> may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire
>> proposal review process is completed.
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Stay connected with the State Department:
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Nov  9 01:52:39 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 07:52:39 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] definition of "civil society" (was Re: MAG Renewal)
In-Reply-To: <20131108175815.509BE32879C@a2knetwork.org>
References: <C74416C2-02BD-4E8E-A981-6A13F46B11AE@unog.ch>
	<CA+YNoKg4WfogBLYZHUSAqe0H+94S1JMpHs3_H+=ad6pZn8Ms4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BF4414B0-B34E-466C-823D-5D08DC051D2D@gmail.com>
	<CAEhPqwr=VanWdh8_77F6GTLrGH+An1nCw-FnD-r73ugx3P2Ezg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiBnh2bm0R4EttUUh9tRu90xwx7XR46WQdFrRAxcziC7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<527CAD9B.9090803@gold.ac.uk>
	<20131108175815.509BE32879C@a2knetwork.org>
Message-ID: <20131109075239.66a9b6b5@quill>

JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> Kivuva's questions are excellent questions. However, the first
> missing question is: "what is civil society?".

Indeed that is very much a key question.

In Bali, Markus Kummer remarked that he liked the “giggle test” in
regard to that question: A claim to be a civil society person can
be considered to have been disproved when upon making that claim
in a room full of civil society people, people start giggling about
that claim.

That is true.

However I think that in view of various developments, the “giggle test”
is nowadays not an effective method anymore for determining the
boundaries of civil society.

Here's my proposal for a definition:

  In the context of multistakeholder processes, the term "civil
  society" should be used only as referring to organizations and
  individuals who engage while maintaining their independence from
  those who hold governmental power or economic power in relation
  to the topics under discussion.

Greetings,
Norbert

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Sat Nov 30 11:00:40 2013
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 21:00:40 +0500
Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil
 society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)
In-Reply-To: <DF7CF722-0ECE-4DD9-B24C-56010F9D4AB3@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>
 <DF7CF722-0ECE-4DD9-B24C-56010F9D4AB3@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CEC0024E.4CF5C%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>

I vaguely remember him using this at APrIGF Seoul as well.

Interesting!

Best wishes and regards
Shahzad

From:  Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Date:  Saturday, November 30, 2013 at 8:57 PM
To:  Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Cc:  McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com>, Anja Kovacs
<anja at internetdemocracy.in>, "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt> ," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject:  Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil
society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)

concept of "multi-equal-stakeholder" was introduced by Fadi Chehadé soon
after he joined ICANN last year.  Might have been used before, but something
he's spoken of often.  It will be in meeting transcripts from around Oct
2012, or see, example,

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/10/15/icanns-new-ceo-talks-about-bala
nce-of-power/

http://www.dotgreen.org/blogs-updates/new-season/

Adam


On Dec 1, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

>  On 30 Nov 2013, at 9:31 pm, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>>  Also, if someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about
>> "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time I
>> hear about this.
>>  
>>  This is a very good question.  I don't know much about non-Internet-y
>> multi-equal-ness, but I think the purest form of multi-equal stakeholderism
>> in IG can be found in some of the RIR PDPs and the IETF processes.
>  
>  It's an odd choice of example, since many would say the IETF is not
> multi-stakeholder all, since it does not recognise stakeholder groups.  Where
> multi-equal stakeholderism is usually used specifically in reference to
> organisations that do recognise stakeholder groups, to indicate that they
> should be equal to one another in process terms.  This distinguishes it from
> forms of multi-stakeholderism like at the OECD and purportedly at the ITU,
> that don't recognise equality between the stakeholders.  So it's an attempt to
> refine the term multi-stakeholderism.  I have to say, I don't really like the
> term though.
>  
>  -- 
>  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
>  
>  
>  Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>  
>  
>  @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>  
>  Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>  
>  WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
> enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/8m.
>  

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/8d0390f8/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Nov 30 16:44:20 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 08:44:20 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com> <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org> <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <BC8CCE75C1B84CC2A8AE48C63A661229@Toshiba>

Is the audience at a football game multi-stakeholder?

>I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the concerns of >those groups into the tussle

if it has no form the concept is fairly meaningless IMHO.

From: Avri Doria 
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:49 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism

Hi,

I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the concerns of those groups into the tussle. And while all participants need to understand technology, or at least some aspects, they do not need to be technologists or even particularly technical community oriented - they can be, human rights activists fighting for privacy in the language of technology, or they can be intellectual propertyists working for property in the language of technology. Many stakeholders from many stakeholder groups.

The IETF isn't formed like groups such as the NCSG or bestbits or the ICC who act from a single stakeholder group perspective and require membership in a particular stakeholder group (however they define that) for membership. NCSG is a stakeholder group, though it does devolve into subgroups, but everyone must be non-commercial. There are no such requirements in the IETF, any one from any group is included. I think it is a multistakeholder group, just of a slight different kind.
Avri Doria


Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote: 
Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:Hi,I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder as all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they please or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may conceive of these groups. I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate the mandatory structure of all Ig groups.  I do not even agree that any specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an organization, as long as any stakeholder can participate.Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead to IETFbeing called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders' interests canbe delineated or at the very least distinguished.If "multi-stakeholder" !
 just
means "any person can participate", then whyuse the prefix "multi-"?  Why not just call it "stakeholder-driven" or"stakeholder-led"?  After all, if individuals are stakeholders (insteadof interest groups being stakeholders), then the moment there is morethan a single individual taking part in a decision-making process, itbecomes "multi-stakeholder".I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism. Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of governance",then?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131201/961f2535/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Nov 30 17:03:34 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:03:34 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <BC8CCE75C1B84CC2A8AE48C63A661229@Toshiba>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com> <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org> <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com> <BC8CCE75C1B84CC2A8AE48C63A661229@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <891bfb93-e60f-493b-8933-e2ddcfc38b26@email.android.com>

Your ad Absurdum  is right in at least one thing, the multi-stakeholder effort has to be in the service of something the stakeholder can  have an effect on. But in some extended sense, perhaps yes, though trivially, given the power of fans to affect games.


Not all multistakeholder efforts are important. And not all follow cooperative models for getting to problem solutions.   In understanding this I try not to conflate the definition of the terms with the other aspects of the model. That is why I  believe that the IETF can be described as a multistakeholder implementation of a cooperative participatory model in action.   

 I am fine agreeing to disagree.

Avri Doria

Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>Is the audience at a football game multi-stakeholder?
>
>>I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a
>stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who
>come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the
>concerns of >those groups into the tussle
>
>if it has no form the concept is fairly meaningless IMHO.
>
>From: Avri Doria 
>Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:49 AM
>To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
>
>Hi,
>
>I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a
>stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who
>come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the
>concerns of those groups into the tussle. And while all participants
>need to understand technology, or at least some aspects, they do not
>need to be technologists or even particularly technical community
>oriented - they can be, human rights activists fighting for privacy in
>the language of technology, or they can be intellectual propertyists
>working for property in the language of technology. Many stakeholders
>from many stakeholder groups.
>
>The IETF isn't formed like groups such as the NCSG or bestbits or the
>ICC who act from a single stakeholder group perspective and require
>membership in a particular stakeholder group (however they define that)
>for membership. NCSG is a stakeholder group, though it does devolve
>into subgroups, but everyone must be non-commercial. There are no such
>requirements in the IETF, any one from any group is included. I think
>it is a multistakeholder group, just of a slight different kind.
>Avri Doria
>
>
>Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote: 
>Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:Hi,I would argue that the IETF is most
>definitely multi stakeholder as all stakeholders may/can/do participate
>and can caucus as they please or not as their stakeholder groups,
>however they may conceive of these groups. I do not know where the
>requirement originated for the standard stakeholder groups defined
>unilaterally by governments to dictate the mandatory structure of all
>Ig groups.  I do not even agree that any specific stakeholder group
>needs to participate in an organization, as long as any stakeholder can
>participate.Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can
>lead to IETFbeing called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders'
>interests canbe delineated or at the very least distinguished.If
>"multi-stakeholder" !
> just
>means "any person can participate", then whyuse the prefix "multi-"? 
>Why not just call it "stakeholder-driven" or"stakeholder-led"?  After
>all, if individuals are stakeholders (insteadof interest groups being
>stakeholders), then the moment there is morethan a single individual
>taking part in a decision-making process, itbecomes
>"multi-stakeholder".I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation
>forms of governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism. Why
>not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of
>governance",then?
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/f56fdbdf/attachment.htm>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Sat Nov 30 18:19:12 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:19:12 -0500
Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil
 society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)
In-Reply-To: <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgQn7a9rExGLGnDATts_m-g7S6+Use5RLa2Ao=f2XUO-A@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy,


On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 30 Nov 2013, at 9:31 pm, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also, if someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about
>> "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time
>> I hear about this.
>>
>
> This is a very good question.  I don't know much about non-Internet-y
> multi-equal-ness, but I think the purest form of multi-equal stakeholderism
> in IG can be found in some of the RIR PDPs and the IETF processes.
>
>
> It's an odd choice of example
>


It's a great example.  Can you name other settings in Internet policy that
has folks operating as equals without being divided by silos?  Where
government folks and CS and people who run telco networks all have the same
status?




> , since many would say the IETF is not multi-stakeholder all,
>

I've never met anyone who has ever said that.  Are you actually trying to
make that claim?



> since it does not recognise stakeholder groups.
>


Stakeholder groupings are artificial boundaries imposed on us at WSIS by
government types.

It is NOT the way Internet policy has been made during the first 3 decades
of Internet existence.



>   Where multi-equal stakeholderism is usually used specifically in
> reference to organisations that do recognise stakeholder groups, to
> indicate that they should be equal to one another in process terms.
>


I refuse to limit the use of that term to fora which use artificial
boundaries between people.


 This distinguishes it from forms of multi-stakeholderism like at the OECD
> and purportedly at the ITU, that don't recognise equality between the
> stakeholders.  So it's an attempt to refine the term multi-stakeholderism.
>  I have to say, I don't really like the term though.
>

I really like it, it describes the IG processes I am most active in quite
well.

Last week, in Abidjan for instance, there were several hundred folks from
Africa and elsewhere getting together to work on resource policies for the
African region.  Here is the list of those participants.

http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/en/meeting/participants   slect "all"
then "apply" to see entire list.

A you can see there are folks from ALL Stakeholder groupings that WSIS
divided us into, but we do not recognise those boundaries.  We discuss
policies and ideas as equals.  So a government Minister is equal to a
router jockey.  Ideas win on merit.  Policies decided by consensus.  We all
put forth what we think is in the best interests of the Internet in Africa.

I think it is the "shining city on the hill" of Internet governance.  I
think all IG should be done that way, in a "multi-equal" manner.

rgds,

McTim




>
>  --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @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.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/fde92886/attachment.htm>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Sat Nov 30 18:21:57 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:21:57 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <BC8CCE75C1B84CC2A8AE48C63A661229@Toshiba>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com>
 <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org> <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com>
 <BC8CCE75C1B84CC2A8AE48C63A661229@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjThye_d4=o4=+WU53FwMeK_q09Lg+uhcxKncFUD143xw@mail.gmail.com>

Ian,

I like AD's answer below, but offer mine in line:


On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Is the audience at a football game multi-stakeholder?
>

Of course.  There are at least 2 groups.  the home team vs. the visitors.



>
> >I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a stake,
> a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who come from
> all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the concerns of >those
> groups into the tussle
>
> if it has no form the concept is fairly meaningless IMHO.
>


see my previous reply. a few minutes ago.

rgds,

McTim

>
>  *From:* Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:49 AM
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
>
> Hi,
>
> I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a stake, a
> material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who come from all
> of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the concerns of those
> groups into the tussle. And while all participants need to understand
> technology, or at least some aspects, they do not need to be technologists
> or even particularly technical community oriented - they can be, human
> rights activists fighting for privacy in the language of technology, or
> they can be intellectual propertyists working for property in the language
> of technology. Many stakeholders from many stakeholder groups.
>
> The IETF isn't formed like groups such as the NCSG or bestbits or the ICC
> who act from a single stakeholder group perspective and require membership
> in a particular stakeholder group (however they define that) for
> membership. NCSG is a stakeholder group, though it does devolve into
> subgroups, but everyone must be non-commercial. There are no such
> requirements in the IETF, any one from any group is included. I think it is
> a multistakeholder group, just of a slight different kind.
> Avri Doria
>
> Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>>
>> Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder as all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they please or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may conceive of these groups.
>>>
>>> I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate the mandatory structure of all Ig groups.  I do not even agree that any specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an organization, as long as any stakeholder can participate.
>>
>>
>> Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead to IETF
>> being called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders' interests can
>> be delineated or at the very least distinguished.
>>
>> If "multi-stakeholder" !
>>  just
>> means "any person can participate", then why
>> use the prefix "multi-"?  Why not just call it "stakeholder-driven" or
>> "stakeholder-led"?  After all, if individuals are stakeholders (instead
>>
>> of interest groups being stakeholders), then the moment there is more
>> than a single individual taking part in a decision-making process, it
>> becomes "multi-stakeholder".
>>
>>
>>> I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism.
>>
>>
>> Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of governance",
>>
>> then?
>>
>>  ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/e0a1c8ee/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Nov 30 22:00:57 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:57 +0800
Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil
 society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgQn7a9rExGLGnDATts_m-g7S6+Use5RLa2Ao=f2XUO-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <CACAaNxgQn7a9rExGLGnDATts_m-g7S6+Use5RLa2Ao=f2XUO-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ECA68D6E-973F-48D9-BF49-4D385F729A39@ciroap.org>

On 1 Dec 2013, at 7:19 am, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:

> , since many would say the IETF is not multi-stakeholder all,
> 
> I've never met anyone who has ever said that.  Are you actually trying to make that claim?

Hardly just me, a lot of people were saying so during the last IGF; it was a recurring theme that the term "multi-stakeholderism" had become meaningless because it was being applied to anything and everything.  Although this came through strongly at a number of workshops, i particularly recall that it came up at the pre-event "Technical standards and metrics for measurable impact of multi-stakeholderism" (http://www.internet-science.eu/igf-workshop-2013).  I don't have time right now to look for specific references, but I suspect this observation may have also been made by CIGI (who were co-organisers of that pre-event) in their series of papers at http://www.cigionline.org/series/internet-governance.  This is not to say that the IETF isn't procedurally open, but it isn't multi-stakeholder in any meaningful sense.

Hence the emergence of a range of more specific terms of which multi-equal stakeholderism is only one, and not even the ugliest.

> Stakeholder groupings are artificial boundaries imposed on us at WSIS by government types.
> 
> It is NOT the way Internet policy has been made during the first 3 decades of Internet existence.

And they never claimed to be multi-stakeholder back then, either.

Though it's still a work in progress, our session at the Best Bits meeting in Bali towards defining multi-stakeholderism made the point very clearly that it required a balancing of power differences between stakeholder groups.  This is vital, otherwise the perspectives of the powerless are simply drowned out.  Rough notes are at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

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

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

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131201/ab66d306/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131201/ab66d306/attachment.sig>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Sat Nov 30 23:33:59 2013
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:33:59 -0500
Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil
 society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)
In-Reply-To: <ECA68D6E-973F-48D9-BF49-4D385F729A39@ciroap.org>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <CACAaNxgQn7a9rExGLGnDATts_m-g7S6+Use5RLa2Ao=f2XUO-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ECA68D6E-973F-48D9-BF49-4D385F729A39@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhcKr=XHHnwdbcr1ZAsHRk7q5S4evN074BjpquR=cRUKQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 1 Dec 2013, at 7:19 am, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  , since many would say the IETF is not multi-stakeholder all,
>>
>
> I've never met anyone who has ever said that.  Are you actually trying to
> make that claim?
>
>
> Hardly just me, a lot of people were saying so during the last IGF; it was
> a recurring theme that the term "multi-stakeholderism" had become
> meaningless because it was being applied to anything and everything.
>  Although this came through strongly at a number of workshops, i
> particularly recall that it came up at the pre-event "Technical standards
> and metrics for measurable impact of multi-stakeholderism" (
> http://www.internet-science.eu/igf-workshop-2013).  I don't have time
> right now to look for specific references, but I suspect this observation
> may have also been made by CIGI (who were co-organisers of that pre-event)
> in their series of papers at
> http://www.cigionline.org/series/internet-governance.  This is not to say
> that the IETF isn't procedurally open, but it isn't multi-stakeholder in
> any meaningful sense.
>


Except of course that people from all of the artificial WSIS SGs
participate, which is the definition of MSism in the WSIS sense.


>
> Hence the emergence of a range of more specific terms of which multi-equal
> stakeholderism is only one, and not even the ugliest.
>
>  Stakeholder groupings are artificial boundaries imposed on us at WSIS by
> government types.
>
> It is NOT the way Internet policy has been made during the first 3 decades
> of Internet existence.
>
>
> And they never claimed to be multi-stakeholder back then, either.
>
> Though it's still a work in progress, our session at the Best Bits meeting
> in Bali towards defining multi-stakeholderism made the point very clearly
> that it required a balancing of power differences between stakeholder
> groups.  This is vital, otherwise the perspectives of the powerless are
> simply drowned out.
>

If everyone is equal, then no one's voice is drowned out.   The notion of
"power" only comes into play when you buy into intergovernmental
(ITU/OECD/UNCTAD/$IGO) processes.

I've been a WG Chair in a RIR PDP, and the only power is that of the
individual, speaking for themselves about what they think is in the best
interest of the Internet.  Google or the USA has no more power in these
processes than you and I.  I think that BB and CS in general should embrace
this kind of equality, not shun it in favor of intergovernmental processes
where we have to beg for seats at the table in order to talk about the
shape of other tables where actual policy work is being done.

rgds,

McTim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/e6a3fe54/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Nov 30 11:07:51 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:07:51 -0500
Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil
 society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)
In-Reply-To: <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com>

Hi,

I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder as all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they please or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may conceive of these groups. 

I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate the mandatory structure of all Ig groups.  I do not even agree that any specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an organization, as long as any stakeholder can participate.

I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism. 

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>On 30 Nov 2013, at 9:31 pm, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, if someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more
>about "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful -
>first time I hear about this.
>> 
>> This is a very good question.  I don't know much about non-Internet-y
>multi-equal-ness, but I think the purest form of multi-equal
>stakeholderism in IG can be found in some of the RIR PDPs and the IETF
>processes.
>
>It's an odd choice of example, since many would say the IETF is not
>multi-stakeholder all, since it does not recognise stakeholder groups. 
>Where multi-equal stakeholderism is usually used specifically in
>reference to organisations that do recognise stakeholder groups, to
>indicate that they should be equal to one another in process terms. 
>This distinguishes it from forms of multi-stakeholderism like at the
>OECD and purportedly at the ITU, that don't recognise equality between
>the stakeholders.  So it's an attempt to refine the term
>multi-stakeholderism.  I have to say, I don't really like the term
>though.
>
>-- 
>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
>
>Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
>@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
>Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
>necessary.
>
>WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/e0cf60f5/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Nov 30 12:30:21 2013
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:30:21 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org>

Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:
> Hi,
> 
> I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder as all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they please or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may conceive of these groups. 
> 
> I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate the mandatory structure of all Ig groups.  I do not even agree that any specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an organization, as long as any stakeholder can participate.

Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead to IETF
being called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders' interests can
be delineated or at the very least distinguished.

If "multi-stakeholder" just means "any person can participate", then why
use the prefix "multi-"?  Why not just call it "stakeholder-driven" or
"stakeholder-led"?  After all, if individuals are stakeholders (instead
of interest groups being stakeholders), then the moment there is more
than a single individual taking part in a decision-making process, it
becomes "multi-stakeholder".

> I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism. 

Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of governance",
then?

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
--------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow
Information Society Project, Yale Law School
T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/c82c8f8e/attachment.sig>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Nov 30 12:49:26 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:49:26 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com> <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com>

Hi,

I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the concerns of those groups into the tussle. And while all participants need to understand technology, or at least some aspects, they do not need to be technologists or even particularly technical community oriented - they can be, human rights activists fighting for privacy in the language of technology, or they can be intellectual propertyists working for property in the language of technology.  Many stakeholders from many stakeholder groups.

The IETF isn't formed like groups such as the NCSG or bestbits or the ICC who act from a single stakeholder group perspective and require membership in a particular stakeholder group (however they define that) for membership.  NCSG is a stakeholder group, though it does devolve into subgroups, but everyone must be non-commercial.  There are no such requirements  in the IETF, any one from any group is included. I think it is a multistakeholder group, just of a slight different kind.
Avri Doria

Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder as
>all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they please
>or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may conceive of these
>groups. 
>> 
>> I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard
>stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate the
>mandatory structure of all Ig groups.  I do not even agree that any
>specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an organization, as
>long as any stakeholder can participate.
>
>Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead to
>IETF
>being called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders' interests can
>be delineated or at the very least distinguished.
>
>If "multi-stakeholder" just means "any person can participate", then
>why
>use the prefix "multi-"?  Why not just call it "stakeholder-driven" or
>"stakeholder-led"?  After all, if individuals are stakeholders (instead
>of interest groups being stakeholders), then the moment there is more
>than a single individual taking part in a decision-making process, it
>becomes "multi-stakeholder".
>
>> I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of
>governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism. 
>
>Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of
>governance",
>then?
>
>-- 
>Pranesh Prakash
>Policy Director
>Centre for Internet and Society
>T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
>PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
>--------------------
>Access to Knowledge Fellow
>Information Society Project, Yale Law School
>T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/f298e9fe/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Nov 30 12:52:08 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:52:08 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>
	<ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com>
	<529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8yuch_0+8eeJ4cHX7e5TMQD0Yb6c_53TbB5MfaRybc+w@mail.gmail.com>

+1


On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder as all
> stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they please or not as
> their stakeholder groups, however they may conceive of these groups.
> >
> > I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard
> stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate the
> mandatory structure of all Ig groups.  I do not even agree that any
> specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an organization, as long
> as any stakeholder can participate.
>
> Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead to IETF
> being called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders' interests can
> be delineated or at the very least distinguished.
>
> If "multi-stakeholder" just means "any person can participate", then why
> use the prefix "multi-"?  Why not just call it "stakeholder-driven" or
> "stakeholder-led"?  After all, if individuals are stakeholders (instead
> of interest groups being stakeholders), then the moment there is more
> than a single individual taking part in a decision-making process, it
> becomes "multi-stakeholder".
>
> > I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of governance.
> I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism.
>
> Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of governance",
> then?
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director
> Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
> --------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow
> Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/fd42feb3/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Nov 30 14:42:06 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 20:42:06 +0100
Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil
  society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)
In-Reply-To: <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org>
 <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.89.1642081830.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>


>On 16:45 30/11/2013, Jeremy Malcolm said:
>many would say the IETF is not multi-stakeholder all, since it does 
>not recognise stakeholder groups.

Jeremy,

The IETF acknowledges stakeholders groups. I am facilitating the 
IUCG at IETF non-WG (i.e. permanent) mailing list for the civil society 
techies and an help for them to relate within the IETF. This is not 
the fault of the IETF if the civil stakeholders are not interested in 
participating in the IETF work.

There are definitely many problems for civil society members when 
interacting with the IETF. One of them is the English language (as in 
other CS lists). One of the missions of the IUCG is to permit people 
to contribute in their own language and permit other participants to 
translate the concerns of a linguistic community members. This has 
worked very well in the case of French contributors and IDNA2008 
where their influence on the documentation of the Internet support of 
diversity was decisive. It resulted in the final consensus that could 
not have been proposed and reached otherwise due to the seemingly 
irreducible positions of English speaking techies and French speaking 
civil society linguists (actually also defending the cultural 
exception for everyone and as such supported by various linguistic 
communities' engineers).

Anyone with a sensible project can come and ask the IETF Chair to 
create an IETF non-WG mailing list, propose and make its charter 
accepted, gather contributors, and introduce I_Ds as I did.

There is certainly a cultural and sponsoring gap between average 
civil society and average IETF participants, but the diversity on 
both side is very wide. RFC 3774 documents some "IETF Problems" 
(partly corrected), RFC 3869 describes the risks we fear of a private 
sector over influence, that RFC 6852 has now accepted and not really 
counter-ballanced (my pending appeal in spite of/or due to the 
efforts engaged by ISOC that we progressively discover) .

The only thing I see as an important difference is that the IETF 
calls for real top level professionnal thinking, toward practical 
immediate decisions, and is not for political protests or idealistic 
suggestions even well construed. The IETF has and assumes its 
responsibilities; until now, I have only seen Civil Society people 
avoiding the setting-up of enhanced cooperation initiatives where 
they would be actually responsible for something.

jfc






From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Nov 30 14:46:46 2013
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:46:46 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com> <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org> <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <529A40A6.1060201@cis-india.org>

Thanks, Avri.  I'm still not sure if I agree.

I think you're being over-generous when you say they do not have to be
"technical community oriented".  Of course, folks can participate and
send mails, but good wishes of the sort "improve security by mandating
encryption in HTTP2" don't take you far unless you understand HSTS,
opportunistic encryption, SASL, role of CAs, cert-pinning, TLS, SSL,
layered encryption, the role of proxies, what all compliance with
HTTP1.1 implies wrt port 443 vs. port 80 traffic, and a host of other
things which sometimes even technologists who aren't networking
specialists don't get.  Very often the person gets booed down for being
impractical, and told that it's not politics that counts but 'technical
merit'.  (I'm not saying that there is anything *wrong* in this, I'm
merely noting that this is so.)

So, realistically, there aren't many outside of technologists (either
volunteers, or paid by corporations) who contribute to standards-setting
bodies like IETF.  When people contribute not representing interests,
but as individuals, how does the idea of differential 'stakeholder'
interests even arise?  (Unless of course you think not of "the technical
community", but "web server coders vs. DNS providers vs. equipment
manufacturers vs. browser coders" as different stakeholder groups.[1]
If that is so, then even Best Bits has multiple stakeholder groups:
libertarian developing world groups, progressive developing world
groups, free speech groups, development-oriented groups, etc.

Just out of curiosity, do you know any government officials outside of
the US who contribute to IETF from their official work addresses, the
way technologists from industry do?

~ Pranesh

 [1]: If industry is a separate stakeholder from technical community,
then perhaps there is scope to argue that there are two stakeholders
there.  Where does Mozilla, for instance, fit in?  It's a non-profit,
its budget coming largely from Google.  Is it "civil society",
"technical community", "industry", or all/none of the above?

Avri Doria [2013-11-30 12:49]:
> Hi,
> 
> I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a
> stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who
> come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the
> concerns of those groups into the tussle. And while all participants
> need to understand technology, or at least some aspects, they do not
> need to be technologists or even particularly technical community
> oriented - they can be, human rights activists fighting for privacy
> in the language of technology, or they can be intellectual
> propertyists working for property in the language of technology.
> Many stakeholders from many stakeholder groups.
> 
> The IETF isn't formed like groups such as the NCSG or bestbits or the
> ICC who act from a single stakeholder group perspective and require
> membership in a particular stakeholder group (however they define
> that) for membership.  NCSG is a stakeholder group, though it does
> devolve into subgroups, but everyone must be non-commercial.  There
> are no such requirements  in the IETF, any one from any group is
> included. I think it is a multistakeholder group, just of a slight
> different kind. Avri Doria
> 
> Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>> Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder
>>> as
>> all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they
>> please or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may
>> conceive of these groups.
>>> 
>>> I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard
>> stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate
>> the mandatory structure of all Ig groups.  I do not even agree that
>> any specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an
>> organization, as long as any stakeholder can participate.
>> 
>> Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead
>> to IETF being called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders'
>> interests can be delineated or at the very least distinguished.
>> 
>> If "multi-stakeholder" just means "any person can participate",
>> then why use the prefix "multi-"?  Why not just call it
>> "stakeholder-driven" or "stakeholder-led"?  After all, if
>> individuals are stakeholders (instead of interest groups being
>> stakeholders), then the moment there is more than a single
>> individual taking part in a decision-making process, it becomes
>> "multi-stakeholder".
>> 
>>> I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of
>> governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism.
>> 
>> Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of 
>> governance", then?
>> 
>> -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society 
>> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 |
>> Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Access to Knowledge
>> Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314
>> 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> 

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
--------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow
Information Society Project, Yale Law School
T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/0dc5e5b7/attachment.sig>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Nov 30 15:22:47 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:22:47 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <529A40A6.1060201@cis-india.org>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com> <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org> <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com> <529A40A6.1060201@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <ac1fc926-877b-42da-8c81-b198a3fac3ce@email.android.com>

Hi,

I don't know about how many government types use their government email l. Not sure i understand why that matters. We see bunches using other addresses in IGF space, so I am nor sure it is a clear indicator. In any case I will see if there are any stats.

I certainly know of many academics, some not network scientists who participate.  I any case they are academia.  And one can often see the tussle between doing something the academic way and the patented way. 

I know of privacy experts working for NGOs who participate and even lead.  In the privacy week bein done one sees that policy has been brought in by experts in a technically clear and immediate manner.

It is true one has to achieve a degree of understanding and an ability to speak intelligently, but I find that to be just as true in policy spaces.

In any case I accept that there its a difference of opinion on the degree of multi stakeholder participation in the IETF. I will see if I can dig up any statistics.  I just wanted to contribute another perspective.

Avri Doria

Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>Thanks, Avri.  I'm still not sure if I agree.
>
>I think you're being over-generous when you say they do not have to be
>"technical community oriented".  Of course, folks can participate and
>send mails, but good wishes of the sort "improve security by mandating
>encryption in HTTP2" don't take you far unless you understand HSTS,
>opportunistic encryption, SASL, role of CAs, cert-pinning, TLS, SSL,
>layered encryption, the role of proxies, what all compliance with
>HTTP1.1 implies wrt port 443 vs. port 80 traffic, and a host of other
>things which sometimes even technologists who aren't networking
>specialists don't get.  Very often the person gets booed down for being
>impractical, and told that it's not politics that counts but 'technical
>merit'.  (I'm not saying that there is anything *wrong* in this, I'm
>merely noting that this is so.)
>
>So, realistically, there aren't many outside of technologists (either
>volunteers, or paid by corporations) who contribute to
>standards-setting
>bodies like IETF.  When people contribute not representing interests,
>but as individuals, how does the idea of differential 'stakeholder'
>interests even arise?  (Unless of course you think not of "the
>technical
>community", but "web server coders vs. DNS providers vs. equipment
>manufacturers vs. browser coders" as different stakeholder groups.[1]
>If that is so, then even Best Bits has multiple stakeholder groups:
>libertarian developing world groups, progressive developing world
>groups, free speech groups, development-oriented groups, etc.
>
>Just out of curiosity, do you know any government officials outside of
>the US who contribute to IETF from their official work addresses, the
>way technologists from industry do?
>
>~ Pranesh
>
> [1]: If industry is a separate stakeholder from technical community,
>then perhaps there is scope to argue that there are two stakeholders
>there.  Where does Mozilla, for instance, fit in?  It's a non-profit,
>its budget coming largely from Google.  Is it "civil society",
>"technical community", "industry", or all/none of the above?
>
>Avri Doria [2013-11-30 12:49]:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a
>> stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who
>> come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the
>> concerns of those groups into the tussle. And while all participants
>> need to understand technology, or at least some aspects, they do not
>> need to be technologists or even particularly technical community
>> oriented - they can be, human rights activists fighting for privacy
>> in the language of technology, or they can be intellectual
>> propertyists working for property in the language of technology.
>> Many stakeholders from many stakeholder groups.
>> 
>> The IETF isn't formed like groups such as the NCSG or bestbits or the
>> ICC who act from a single stakeholder group perspective and require
>> membership in a particular stakeholder group (however they define
>> that) for membership.  NCSG is a stakeholder group, though it does
>> devolve into subgroups, but everyone must be non-commercial.  There
>> are no such requirements  in the IETF, any one from any group is
>> included. I think it is a multistakeholder group, just of a slight
>> different kind. Avri Doria
>> 
>> Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>>> Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder
>>>> as
>>> all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they
>>> please or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may
>>> conceive of these groups.
>>>> 
>>>> I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard
>>> stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate
>>> the mandatory structure of all Ig groups.  I do not even agree that
>>> any specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an
>>> organization, as long as any stakeholder can participate.
>>> 
>>> Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead
>>> to IETF being called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders'
>>> interests can be delineated or at the very least distinguished.
>>> 
>>> If "multi-stakeholder" just means "any person can participate",
>>> then why use the prefix "multi-"?  Why not just call it
>>> "stakeholder-driven" or "stakeholder-led"?  After all, if
>>> individuals are stakeholders (instead of interest groups being
>>> stakeholders), then the moment there is more than a single
>>> individual taking part in a decision-making process, it becomes
>>> "multi-stakeholder".
>>> 
>>>> I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of
>>> governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism.
>>> 
>>> Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of 
>>> governance", then?
>>> 
>>> -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society 
>>> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 |
>>> Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Access to Knowledge
>>> Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314
>>> 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
>> 
>
>-- 
>Pranesh Prakash
>Policy Director
>Centre for Internet and Society
>T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
>PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
>--------------------
>Access to Knowledge Fellow
>Information Society Project, Yale Law School
>T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/05ade60e/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Nov 30 15:52:56 2013
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:52:56 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <ac1fc926-877b-42da-8c81-b198a3fac3ce@email.android.com>
References: <CACAaNxi=WCOu+pS0cBwqtXMQY3JtHEngDUc5taTAX2wvOgKM4A@mail.gmail.com> <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <ceb0f8c5-70ba-40b0-a4ba-81e491d68fc1@email.android.com> <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org> <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com> <529A40A6.1060201@cis-india.org> <ac1fc926-877b-42da-8c81-b198a3fac3ce@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <529A5028.3080904@cis-india.org>

Avri Doria [2013-11-30 15:22]:
> In any case I accept that there its a difference of opinion on the
> degree of multi stakeholder participation in the IETF. I will see if
> I can dig up any statistics.  I just wanted to contribute another
> perspective.

Thanks so much.  I know Jari Arkko[1] and Bill Fenner compile stats
related to IETF, IESG, RFCs, etc., so they might be a good folks to ask.
 I haven't found anything that makes public stats from either the IRC
channels (a great many of which are empty even when the corresponding
MLs are buzzing) or WG mailing lists.  Given that the archives are
public, I'm sure one could quickly write up a scraper and do the
necessary analysis.

Any other form of statistics would also be great to have.

 [1]: http://arkko.com/tools/stats.html

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
--------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow
Information Society Project, Yale Law School
T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/3488e4d9/attachment.sig>