From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 3 10:45:56 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:45:56 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: <524D753B.2090004@cafonso.ca> References: <524D753B.2090004@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <15B7D8B3-FF0E-4A86-90A9-34E19985BEF6@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Carlos, Just to be clear, I mentioned fragmentation/balkanization because I think it's a misrepresentation of what's being proposed. Thanks for the additional information. I'm not sure Amsterdam is such a problem, but landing in the UK, as many transatlantic cables do, yes. I was going to mention this in another thread, but perhaps this will do: strongly recommend people read Caspar Bowden's work for the European Parliament on PRISM and FISA. Bowden's been writing about the threat of FISA, etc. for some years, Snowden has made clear just how important his work is. Caspar Bowden speaking at the European Parliament Tuesday Sept 24, Study referred to in the presentation "The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights" (need to remember it's all our rights, not just EU citizens). This earlier document "fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud" very good, BBC article shows Bowden's foresight. The points he makes about an economic response (without some government regulated nationalist/regionalist policy) are sensible. And these: Summary of Caspar, Jacob Applebaum, Bruce Schneier others speaking at an event in Lausanne on Monday also worth reading. Would be wonderful of the recent EU Parliament document linked above could be used as a briefing document for the Emerging Issues session in Bali. Unfortunately I don't think Caspar can attend the IGF. Best, Adam On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Adam & all, > > OK, some comments on this. The "BRICs cable" project contemplates > high-capacity links to the USA and Europe, of course. Politically, with > the current situation, the way this will be done is open to question > regarding partnerships, cost sharing, priorities and so on. In no way > this would be just a firewalled point-to-point cable Brazil-China with > stop-overs in SA & India. > > This proposal of course is a joint venture involving private sector and > the BRICs' countries, and details of this are not yet available as far > as I know. There are budget constraints in all countries involved (or at > least three of them...), so this is not so simple or so immediate. Also, > Brazil is contemplating or actively involved in the deployment of other > new direct links (Africa, Europe, encircling South America etc). > > As in all other new international links Brazil is considering or > participating, the whole idea is to guarantee most direct routes to all > regions in the planet, so that traffic does not need to go through the > USA or Amsterdam or etc whatever its origin/destination. Most large > economies with massive use of the Net (we are about to reach 95 million > users) have the same problem and are considering or practicing a similar > policy. The "Snowden revelations" are just helping to accelerate the > process. > > No one here would be naïve to think that BR-USA links should be > disregarded. To the contrary, we need planning to optimize them, and if > other links come online of course there will be more capacity available > for traffic from/to USA. > > On 10/03/2013 02:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Marilia, >> >> Thanks for this report. >> >> Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern >> about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the >> idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach >> you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this >> mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the >> cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at >> the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect >> we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad >> law.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Sorry for any duplication of this message. >>> >>> To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the >>> summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a >>> new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized >>> by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV >>> Rio de Janeiro. >>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy >>> >>> >>> > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of > the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This > joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and > CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and > emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, > Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> -- 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 10 10:45:46 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:45:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: +1 great conversation to have! 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 Anja Kovacs Sent: 10 October 2013 15:45 To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Point taken, Mawaki. We can very well already start sharing ideas online. One of the reasons why I proposed we use the conversations in Bali as a starting point is because I had some quite specific possible agenda items in mind myself. Why not use this opportunity to also start thinking/advocating in a more concerted fashion about the role of civil society in multistakeholder Internet governance and what is required for it to fulfil that role? I find it fascinating how much time we spend on discussing the role of governments, but how little conversation we have about our own role. If this conference is going to be about a more democratic multistakeholder system for Internet governance, I think it is quite important that we also put on the table proposals regarding more formal and systematic involvement of civil society in Internet governance across the board, and the rather thorny issue of how that is going to be made possible in practice (including where the funding is going to come from). Some of these issues will be implicit in our conversations in Bali, and hence I thought those might be an easy starting point for this part of the debate, but there is of course no reason why we shouldn't start doing so already online. Some of my own thoughts on the difficult position civil society finds itself in at the moment can be found here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/ Best regards, Anja On 10 October 2013 18:40, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) --c.a. On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just >> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting >> that into play... > > > I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > >> >> >> >> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite >> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my >> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the >> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr... (non) rules >> and regs. > > > > It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it > is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are > spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from > the T&A folks, not Brasilia. > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 10:52:53 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:52:53 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, being from developing county myself , I am not supporting cyber conf in seoul approach and asked why we should support a summit in Brazil yet to be defined when there are a lot of concerns about cyber conf series . the inflation of fora is not in benefit of CS and in particular those from developing countries I would like to have clear principles about such IG conference and fora , I don't think that we can or should prevent them but at least asking them to embrace the principles of openness , inclusion etc Best, Rafik 2013/10/10 parminder > I am great votary of both (1) civil society jumping headlong into all > *important* *global* IG processes, whether *UN or not*, and (2) fluid > agendas ... > > However cant but note a point. I had earlier repeatedly called for us to > look into OCED's CICCP related *global* Internet policy development > processes and its outcomes, and the process and outcomes of the Seoul cyber > conference (or the London and Budapest series).... In fact I kept > insisting that we do so .... But with a very lukewarm response if any..... > > How do we square such cascading support for taking charge of the Brazil's > new proposed (hardly born yet) process with this earlier attitude.... > > Why is that all processes where developing countries have important, or > even significant, role require urgent examination and intervention, but > those led by developed countries perhaps considered, what is it, friendly, > safe ..... ?? > > Now, before anyone gets offended.... let me say, no personal offence > intended, mine is (and is always) a political statement in a political > space.... And I cant but do what I consider is my job as political civil > society, with strong leanings towards Southern and other marginalised > interests. > > Thanks for understanding, parminder > > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 07:10 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > I think the Brazil initiative gives us a useful focus and we should > definitely make time to discuss it on the fist morning.**** > > ** ** > > In general, though we have suggested agenda I think we should be open to > hacking the event and letting participants drive it the way they want if we > can go for concrete positive outcomes.**** > > ** ** > > *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:* 10 October 2013 14:24 > *To:* Valeria Betancourt > *Cc:* Anja Kovacs; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will > host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** > > ** ** > > On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:*** > * > > > > **** > > I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for > expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the > summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do > you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? **** > > ** ** > > +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see if > we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond just an > expression of support, but including some more substantive output that can > be tabled at the IGF.**** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599**** > > 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: From evangreer at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 10:58:31 2013 From: evangreer at gmail.com (Evan Greer) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:58:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hey everyone, Evan here from Fight for the Future and the Internet Defense League. I won't pretend that we are well connected to global internet governance issues, but we are very good at mobilizing grassroots internet users around the world. I'm wondering what folks thoughts are on organizing an alternative summit in Brazil (like an Internet Social Forum) to coincide with the official event -- giving us the option to run both an inside game and also have a more "pristine" alternative event to discuss our wildest dreams and ideas for the future of the Internet. My experience is that alternative summits like these can be very effective at re-framing the debate within the walls of the official meetings, but provide an opportunity for other work to be done as well. Brazil is such a hot-bed of social movements and tech that it seems like a strong location for something like this. We have very strong connections on the ground there in a variety of movements. As I said, we are somewhat outsiders to this particular community, but we lurk on this list and try to stay informed, and would be happy to chat with anyone who thinks this idea is great / terrible. Cheers, -Evan Greer Fight for the Future On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > being from developing county myself , I am not supporting cyber conf in > seoul approach and asked why we should support a summit in Brazil yet to be > defined when there are a lot of concerns about cyber conf series . the > inflation of fora is not in benefit of CS and in particular those from > developing countries > I would like to have clear principles about such IG conference and fora , > I don't think that we can or should prevent them but at least asking them > to embrace the principles of openness , inclusion etc > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2013/10/10 parminder > >> I am great votary of both (1) civil society jumping headlong into all >> *important* *global* IG processes, whether *UN or not*, and (2) fluid >> agendas ... >> >> However cant but note a point. I had earlier repeatedly called for us to >> look into OCED's CICCP related *global* Internet policy development >> processes and its outcomes, and the process and outcomes of the Seoul cyber >> conference (or the London and Budapest series).... In fact I kept >> insisting that we do so .... But with a very lukewarm response if any..... >> >> How do we square such cascading support for taking charge of the Brazil's >> new proposed (hardly born yet) process with this earlier attitude.... >> >> Why is that all processes where developing countries have important, or >> even significant, role require urgent examination and intervention, but >> those led by developed countries perhaps considered, what is it, friendly, >> safe ..... ?? >> >> Now, before anyone gets offended.... let me say, no personal offence >> intended, mine is (and is always) a political statement in a political >> space.... And I cant but do what I consider is my job as political civil >> society, with strong leanings towards Southern and other marginalised >> interests. >> >> Thanks for understanding, parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 10 October 2013 07:10 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >> I think the Brazil initiative gives us a useful focus and we should >> definitely make time to discuss it on the fist morning.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In general, though we have suggested agenda I think we should be open to >> hacking the event and letting participants drive it the way they want if we >> can go for concrete positive outcomes.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *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:* 10 October 2013 14:24 >> *To:* Valeria Betancourt >> *Cc:* Anja Kovacs; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will >> host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:** >> ** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for >> expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the >> summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do >> you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? **** >> >> ** ** >> >> +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see if >> we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond just an >> expression of support, but including some more substantive output that can >> be tabled at the IGF.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- **** >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599**** >> >> 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.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> > -- *Evan Greer* Campaign Manager Fight for the Future http://fightforthefuture.org Phone: +1 978.852.6457 Email: evan at fightforthefuture.org Twitter: @fightfortheftr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 10 11:05:51 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:05:51 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75AAD2E4-BD73-4417-BE22-3723CE2A68B0@ciroap.org> It could be a great idea - and it's certainly not a terrible one. WSIS was, indeed, run along those lines with (many) parallel civil society convening a an alternative civil society declaration coming out of it. Obvious challenges: the fact that civil society organising structures have crumbled since then, the lack of funding, the short time scale to organise... Could FFTF/IDL join us in Bali, in person or remotely? It is really important for the rest of us to connect with your community, I feel. -- 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 10 Oct 2013, at 10:58 pm, Evan Greer wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > Evan here from Fight for the Future and the Internet Defense League. > > I won't pretend that we are well connected to global internet governance issues, but we are very good at mobilizing grassroots internet users around the world. > > I'm wondering what folks thoughts are on organizing an alternative summit in Brazil (like an Internet Social Forum) to coincide with the official event -- giving us the option to run both an inside game and also have a more "pristine" alternative event to discuss our wildest dreams and ideas for the future of the Internet. My experience is that alternative summits like these can be very effective at re-framing the debate within the walls of the official meetings, but provide an opportunity for other work to be done as well. > > Brazil is such a hot-bed of social movements and tech that it seems like a strong location for something like this. We have very strong connections on the ground there in a variety of movements. > > As I said, we are somewhat outsiders to this particular community, but we lurk on this list and try to stay informed, and would be happy to chat with anyone who thinks this idea is great / terrible. > > Cheers, > -Evan Greer > Fight for the Future > > > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> being from developing county myself , I am not supporting cyber conf in seoul approach and asked why we should support a summit in Brazil yet to be defined when there are a lot of concerns about cyber conf series . the inflation of fora is not in benefit of CS and in particular those from developing countries >> I would like to have clear principles about such IG conference and fora , I don't think that we can or should prevent them but at least asking them to embrace the principles of openness , inclusion etc >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/10/10 parminder >>> I am great votary of both (1) civil society jumping headlong into all *important* *global* IG processes, whether *UN or not*, and (2) fluid agendas ... >>> >>> However cant but note a point. I had earlier repeatedly called for us to look into OCED's CICCP related *global* Internet policy development processes and its outcomes, and the process and outcomes of the Seoul cyber conference (or the London and Budapest series).... In fact I kept insisting that we do so .... But with a very lukewarm response if any..... >>> >>> How do we square such cascading support for taking charge of the Brazil's new proposed (hardly born yet) process with this earlier attitude.... >>> >>> Why is that all processes where developing countries have important, or even significant, role require urgent examination and intervention, but those led by developed countries perhaps considered, what is it, friendly, safe ..... ?? >>> >>> Now, before anyone gets offended.... let me say, no personal offence intended, mine is (and is always) a political statement in a political space.... And I cant but do what I consider is my job as political civil society, with strong leanings towards Southern and other marginalised interests. >>> >>> Thanks for understanding, parminder >>> >>> >>>> On Thursday 10 October 2013 07:10 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >>>> I think the Brazil initiative gives us a useful focus and we should definitely make time to discuss it on the fist morning. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In general, though we have suggested agenda I think we should be open to hacking the event and letting participants drive it the way they want if we can go for concrete positive outcomes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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: 10 October 2013 14:24 >>>> To: Valeria Betancourt >>>> Cc: Anja Kovacs; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see if we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond just an expression of support, but including some more substantive output that can be tabled at the IGF. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> > > > > -- > Evan Greer > Campaign Manager > Fight for the Future > http://fightforthefuture.org > Phone: +1 978.852.6457 > Email: evan at fightforthefuture.org > Twitter: @fightfortheftr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 11:06:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:06:45 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> Message-ID: <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian colleagues or through those on her staff who are monitoring these activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious step. A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going support as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to its success through ensuring that the public interest of all, globally, are reflected in the Internet governance structure which hopefully will emerge. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of matthew shears Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up. On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would be a good thing :) What do others think? Best, Anja On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can participate on an equal footing... It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. -- 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. -- 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: From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 10 11:16:34 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:16:34 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, I think the combination of inside+outside events and participation is almost always the strongest option. I think looking into something like this for reported Brazil forum is reasonable - especially if we find out that some participants end up being more equal than CS. avri On 10 Oct 2013, at 10:58, Evan Greer wrote: > Hey everyone, > > Evan here from Fight for the Future and the Internet Defense League. > > I won't pretend that we are well connected to global internet governance issues, but we are very good at mobilizing grassroots internet users around the world. > > I'm wondering what folks thoughts are on organizing an alternative summit in Brazil (like an Internet Social Forum) to coincide with the official event -- giving us the option to run both an inside game and also have a more "pristine" alternative event to discuss our wildest dreams and ideas for the future of the Internet. My experience is that alternative summits like these can be very effective at re-framing the debate within the walls of the official meetings, but provide an opportunity for other work to be done as well. > > Brazil is such a hot-bed of social movements and tech that it seems like a strong location for something like this. We have very strong connections on the ground there in a variety of movements. > > As I said, we are somewhat outsiders to this particular community, but we lurk on this list and try to stay informed, and would be happy to chat with anyone who thinks this idea is great / terrible. > > Cheers, > -Evan Greer > Fight for the Future > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > being from developing county myself , I am not supporting cyber conf in seoul approach and asked why we should support a summit in Brazil yet to be defined when there are a lot of concerns about cyber conf series . the inflation of fora is not in benefit of CS and in particular those from developing countries > I would like to have clear principles about such IG conference and fora , I don't think that we can or should prevent them but at least asking them to embrace the principles of openness , inclusion etc > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2013/10/10 parminder > I am great votary of both (1) civil society jumping headlong into all *important* *global* IG processes, whether *UN or not*, and (2) fluid agendas ... > > However cant but note a point. I had earlier repeatedly called for us to look into OCED's CICCP related *global* Internet policy development processes and its outcomes, and the process and outcomes of the Seoul cyber conference (or the London and Budapest series).... In fact I kept insisting that we do so .... But with a very lukewarm response if any..... > > How do we square such cascading support for taking charge of the Brazil's new proposed (hardly born yet) process with this earlier attitude.... > > Why is that all processes where developing countries have important, or even significant, role require urgent examination and intervention, but those led by developed countries perhaps considered, what is it, friendly, safe ..... ?? > > Now, before anyone gets offended.... let me say, no personal offence intended, mine is (and is always) a political statement in a political space.... And I cant but do what I consider is my job as political civil society, with strong leanings towards Southern and other marginalised interests. > > Thanks for understanding, parminder > > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 07:10 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> I think the Brazil initiative gives us a useful focus and we should definitely make time to discuss it on the fist morning. >> >> >> >> In general, though we have suggested agenda I think we should be open to hacking the event and letting participants drive it the way they want if we can go for concrete positive outcomes. >> >> >> >> 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: 10 October 2013 14:24 >> To: Valeria Betancourt >> Cc: Anja Kovacs; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> >> >> On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >> >> >> >> >> I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? >> >> >> >> +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see if we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond just an expression of support, but including some more substantive output that can be tabled at the IGF. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> 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. >> >> >> > > > > > > -- > Evan Greer > Campaign Manager > Fight for the Future > http://fightforthefuture.org > Phone: +1 978.852.6457 > Email: evan at fightforthefuture.org > Twitter: @fightfortheftr From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 11:19:49 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:19:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131010171949.04107494@quill> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be > desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of > support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, > perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian > colleagues Carlos had the opportunity to gave it to her in person; there's a picture of the event on the IGC website. Specifically, see the first attachment at http://igcaucus.org/letter-international-civil-society-organizations-president-dilma-rousseff-support-her-statement-68th Greetings, Norbert > or through those on her staff who are monitoring these > activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening > her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious > step. > > > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this > matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group > are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going > support as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to > its success through ensuring that the public interest of all, > globally, are reflected in the Internet governance structure which > hopefully will emerge. > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of matthew > shears Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, > we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for > CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should > start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or > desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - > we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up. > > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be > enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start > working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea > but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we > like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions > in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at > least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of > ICANN would be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN > has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and > unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the > Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN > towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all > governments) can participate on an equal footing... > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in > proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much > of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of > endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation > (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this > was because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course > the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it > has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in > the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a > discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role > has moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation > of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token > and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and > forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms > at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. > From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 10 11:30:00 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:00:00 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5256C7F8.20604@itforchange.net> An alternative civil society space like the Internet Social Forum is something some of us have been thinking for some time... However, doing it outside the yet unknown, unborn Brazil led new initiative is a very bad idea.... Why take a civil society oppositional view to the (only) one global IG effort that may be shaping from the South, for the first time ever. (meanwhile, for the record, while I greatly support if something like what is being reported as Brazil led global dialogue is going to happen, I think a lot of stuff/ talk on the CS lists right now is very pre mature.... I am not even sure what exactly has been proposed, what is in Brazilians' mind, what is in ICANN's mind, whose initiative it really is, in what directions, of what shape and effect, and so on) In fact, as was IT for Change's initial proposal, an Internet Social Forum is needed outside the IGF today, to give an alternative point of organising and expression - based on core principles of social justice to which world social forums attest - to what is beginning to be an increasingly captured space... Or maybe outside OECD Internet policy meetings, or the Seoul conference.... parminder On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think the combination of inside+outside events and participation is almost always the strongest option. I think looking into something like this for reported Brazil forum is reasonable - especially if we find out that some participants end up being more equal than CS. > > avri > > On 10 Oct 2013, at 10:58, Evan Greer wrote: > >> Hey everyone, >> >> Evan here from Fight for the Future and the Internet Defense League. >> >> I won't pretend that we are well connected to global internet governance issues, but we are very good at mobilizing grassroots internet users around the world. >> >> I'm wondering what folks thoughts are on organizing an alternative summit in Brazil (like an Internet Social Forum) to coincide with the official event -- giving us the option to run both an inside game and also have a more "pristine" alternative event to discuss our wildest dreams and ideas for the future of the Internet. My experience is that alternative summits like these can be very effective at re-framing the debate within the walls of the official meetings, but provide an opportunity for other work to be done as well. >> >> Brazil is such a hot-bed of social movements and tech that it seems like a strong location for something like this. We have very strong connections on the ground there in a variety of movements. >> >> As I said, we are somewhat outsiders to this particular community, but we lurk on this list and try to stay informed, and would be happy to chat with anyone who thinks this idea is great / terrible. >> >> Cheers, >> -Evan Greer >> Fight for the Future >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> being from developing county myself , I am not supporting cyber conf in seoul approach and asked why we should support a summit in Brazil yet to be defined when there are a lot of concerns about cyber conf series . the inflation of fora is not in benefit of CS and in particular those from developing countries >> I would like to have clear principles about such IG conference and fora , I don't think that we can or should prevent them but at least asking them to embrace the principles of openness , inclusion etc >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/10/10 parminder >> I am great votary of both (1) civil society jumping headlong into all *important* *global* IG processes, whether *UN or not*, and (2) fluid agendas ... >> >> However cant but note a point. I had earlier repeatedly called for us to look into OCED's CICCP related *global* Internet policy development processes and its outcomes, and the process and outcomes of the Seoul cyber conference (or the London and Budapest series).... In fact I kept insisting that we do so .... But with a very lukewarm response if any..... >> >> How do we square such cascading support for taking charge of the Brazil's new proposed (hardly born yet) process with this earlier attitude.... >> >> Why is that all processes where developing countries have important, or even significant, role require urgent examination and intervention, but those led by developed countries perhaps considered, what is it, friendly, safe ..... ?? >> >> Now, before anyone gets offended.... let me say, no personal offence intended, mine is (and is always) a political statement in a political space.... And I cant but do what I consider is my job as political civil society, with strong leanings towards Southern and other marginalised interests. >> >> Thanks for understanding, parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 10 October 2013 07:10 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >>> I think the Brazil initiative gives us a useful focus and we should definitely make time to discuss it on the fist morning. >>> >>> >>> >>> In general, though we have suggested agenda I think we should be open to hacking the event and letting participants drive it the way they want if we can go for concrete positive outcomes. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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: 10 October 2013 14:24 >>> To: Valeria Betancourt >>> Cc: Anja Kovacs; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see if we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond just an expression of support, but including some more substantive output that can be tabled at the IGF. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Evan Greer >> Campaign Manager >> Fight for the Future >> http://fightforthefuture.org >> Phone: +1 978.852.6457 >> Email: evan at fightforthefuture.org >> Twitter: @fightfortheftr > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From evangreer at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 11:32:43 2013 From: evangreer at gmail.com (Evan Greer) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:32:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <75AAD2E4-BD73-4417-BE22-3723CE2A68B0@ciroap.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> <75AAD2E4-BD73-4417-BE22-3723CE2A68B0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I don't think that we can send someone to Bali but we'd be happy to join a session remotely or talk ideas / strategy anytime. Is there a central location where we can get info or can someone keep us in the loop? -Evan On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > It could be a great idea - and it's certainly not a terrible one. WSIS > was, indeed, run along those lines with (many) parallel civil society > convening a an alternative civil society declaration coming out of it. > > Obvious challenges: the fact that civil society organising structures have > crumbled since then, the lack of funding, the short time scale to > organise... > > Could FFTF/IDL join us in Bali, in person or remotely? It is really > important for the rest of us to connect with your community, I feel. > > -- > 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 10 Oct 2013, at 10:58 pm, Evan Greer wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > Evan here from Fight for the Future and the Internet Defense League. > > I won't pretend that we are well connected to global internet governance > issues, but we are very good at mobilizing grassroots internet users around > the world. > > I'm wondering what folks thoughts are on organizing an alternative summit > in Brazil (like an Internet Social Forum) to coincide with the official > event -- giving us the option to run both an inside game and also have a > more "pristine" alternative event to discuss our wildest dreams and ideas > for the future of the Internet. My experience is that alternative summits > like these can be very effective at re-framing the debate within the walls > of the official meetings, but provide an opportunity for other work to be > done as well. > > Brazil is such a hot-bed of social movements and tech that it seems like a > strong location for something like this. We have very strong connections on > the ground there in a variety of movements. > > As I said, we are somewhat outsiders to this particular community, but we > lurk on this list and try to stay informed, and would be happy to chat with > anyone who thinks this idea is great / terrible. > > Cheers, > -Evan Greer > Fight for the Future > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> being from developing county myself , I am not supporting cyber conf in >> seoul approach and asked why we should support a summit in Brazil yet to be >> defined when there are a lot of concerns about cyber conf series . the >> inflation of fora is not in benefit of CS and in particular those from >> developing countries >> I would like to have clear principles about such IG conference and fora , >> I don't think that we can or should prevent them but at least asking them >> to embrace the principles of openness , inclusion etc >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/10/10 parminder >> >>> I am great votary of both (1) civil society jumping headlong into all >>> *important* *global* IG processes, whether *UN or not*, and (2) fluid >>> agendas ... >>> >>> However cant but note a point. I had earlier repeatedly called for us to >>> look into OCED's CICCP related *global* Internet policy development >>> processes and its outcomes, and the process and outcomes of the Seoul cyber >>> conference (or the London and Budapest series).... In fact I kept >>> insisting that we do so .... But with a very lukewarm response if any..... >>> >>> How do we square such cascading support for taking charge of the >>> Brazil's new proposed (hardly born yet) process with this earlier >>> attitude.... >>> >>> Why is that all processes where developing countries have important, or >>> even significant, role require urgent examination and intervention, but >>> those led by developed countries perhaps considered, what is it, friendly, >>> safe ..... ?? >>> >>> Now, before anyone gets offended.... let me say, no personal offence >>> intended, mine is (and is always) a political statement in a political >>> space.... And I cant but do what I consider is my job as political civil >>> society, with strong leanings towards Southern and other marginalised >>> interests. >>> >>> Thanks for understanding, parminder >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 10 October 2013 07:10 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >>> >>> I think the Brazil initiative gives us a useful focus and we should >>> definitely make time to discuss it on the fist morning.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> In general, though we have suggested agenda I think we should be open >>> to hacking the event and letting participants drive it the way they want if >>> we can go for concrete positive outcomes.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *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:* 10 October 2013 14:24 >>> *To:* Valeria Betancourt >>> *Cc:* Anja Kovacs; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will >>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:* >>> *** >>> >>> >>> >>> **** >>> >>> I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for >>> expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the >>> summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do >>> you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see if >>> we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond just an >>> expression of support, but including some more substantive output that can >>> be tabled at the IGF.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> -- **** >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599**** >>> >>> 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.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > *Evan Greer* > Campaign Manager > Fight for the Future > http://fightforthefuture.org > Phone: +1 978.852.6457 > Email: evan at fightforthefuture.org > Twitter: @fightfortheftr > > -- *Evan Greer* Campaign Manager Fight for the Future http://fightforthefuture.org Phone: +1 978.852.6457 Email: evan at fightforthefuture.org Twitter: @fightfortheftr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From evangreer at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 11:35:56 2013 From: evangreer at gmail.com (Evan Greer) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:35:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256C7F8.20604@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> <5256C7F8.20604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, I think this is astute, it makes sense to see how this shapes up before planning something outside. Our feeling was that this does represent a potential shift, and Brazil's orientation on this is clearly better than many other governments. I guess my thought wasn't that an outside presence would be explicitly oppositional -- but maybe it will always come off that way. Looking forward to more discussion on this. On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:30 AM, parminder wrote: > > An alternative civil society space like the Internet Social Forum is > something some of us have been thinking for some time... However, doing > it outside the yet unknown, unborn Brazil led new initiative is a very bad > idea.... Why take a civil society oppositional view to the (only) one > global IG effort that may be shaping from the South, for the first time > ever. > > (meanwhile, for the record, while I greatly support if something like what > is being reported as Brazil led global dialogue is going to happen, I think > a lot of stuff/ talk on the CS lists right now is very pre mature.... I am > not even sure what exactly has been proposed, what is in Brazilians' mind, > what is in ICANN's mind, whose initiative it really is, in what directions, > of what shape and effect, and so on) > > In fact, as was IT for Change's initial proposal, an Internet Social Forum > is needed outside the IGF today, to give an alternative point of organising > and expression - based on core principles of social justice to which world > social forums attest - to what is beginning to be an increasingly captured > space... Or maybe outside OECD Internet policy meetings, or the Seoul > conference.... > > parminder > > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I think the combination of inside+outside events and participation is almost always the strongest option. I think looking into something like this for reported Brazil forum is reasonable - especially if we find out that some participants end up being more equal than CS. > > avri > > On 10 Oct 2013, at 10:58, Evan Greer wrote: > > > Hey everyone, > > Evan here from Fight for the Future and the Internet Defense League. > > I won't pretend that we are well connected to global internet governance issues, but we are very good at mobilizing grassroots internet users around the world. > > I'm wondering what folks thoughts are on organizing an alternative summit in Brazil (like an Internet Social Forum) to coincide with the official event -- giving us the option to run both an inside game and also have a more "pristine" alternative event to discuss our wildest dreams and ideas for the future of the Internet. My experience is that alternative summits like these can be very effective at re-framing the debate within the walls of the official meetings, but provide an opportunity for other work to be done as well. > > Brazil is such a hot-bed of social movements and tech that it seems like a strong location for something like this. We have very strong connections on the ground there in a variety of movements. > > As I said, we are somewhat outsiders to this particular community, but we lurk on this list and try to stay informed, and would be happy to chat with anyone who thinks this idea is great / terrible. > > Cheers, > -Evan Greer > Fight for the Future > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > being from developing county myself , I am not supporting cyber conf in seoul approach and asked why we should support a summit in Brazil yet to be defined when there are a lot of concerns about cyber conf series . the inflation of fora is not in benefit of CS and in particular those from developing countries > I would like to have clear principles about such IG conference and fora , I don't think that we can or should prevent them but at least asking them to embrace the principles of openness , inclusion etc > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2013/10/10 parminder > I am great votary of both (1) civil society jumping headlong into all *important* *global* IG processes, whether *UN or not*, and (2) fluid agendas ... > > However cant but note a point. I had earlier repeatedly called for us to look into OCED's CICCP related *global* Internet policy development processes and its outcomes, and the process and outcomes of the Seoul cyber conference (or the London and Budapest series).... In fact I kept insisting that we do so .... But with a very lukewarm response if any..... > > How do we square such cascading support for taking charge of the Brazil's new proposed (hardly born yet) process with this earlier attitude.... > > Why is that all processes where developing countries have important, or even significant, role require urgent examination and intervention, but those led by developed countries perhaps considered, what is it, friendly, safe ..... ?? > > Now, before anyone gets offended.... let me say, no personal offence intended, mine is (and is always) a political statement in a political space.... And I cant but do what I consider is my job as political civil society, with strong leanings towards Southern and other marginalised interests. > > Thanks for understanding, parminder > > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 07:10 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > I think the Brazil initiative gives us a useful focus and we should definitely make time to discuss it on the fist morning. > > > > In general, though we have suggested agenda I think we should be open to hacking the event and letting participants drive it the way they want if we can go for concrete positive outcomes. > > > > 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: andrewpuddephattgp-digital.org > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net ] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: 10 October 2013 14:24 > To: Valeria Betancourt > Cc: Anja Kovacs; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > > > > > I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? > > > > +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see if we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond just an expression of support, but including some more substantive output that can be tabled at the IGF. > > > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > 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. > > > > > > > > > -- > Evan Greer > Campaign Manager > Fight for the Futurehttp://fightforthefuture.org > Phone: +1 978.852.6457 > Email: evan at fightforthefuture.org > Twitter: @fightfortheftr > > > -- *Evan Greer* Campaign Manager Fight for the Future http://fightforthefuture.org Phone: +1 978.852.6457 Email: evan at fightforthefuture.org Twitter: @fightfortheftr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Oct 3 11:06:09 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:06:09 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: <15B7D8B3-FF0E-4A86-90A9-34E19985BEF6@glocom.ac.jp> References: <524D753B.2090004@cafonso.ca>,<15B7D8B3-FF0E-4A86-90A9-34E19985BEF6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2828C5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Just fyi re international submarine cables, Tele-Geography produces pretty maps of the same as some no doubt are aware..showing latency, lit capacity, landing stations, timeline and other fun facts. See: http://submarine-cable-map-2013.telegeography.com/ Lee ________________________________________ From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] on behalf of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso Cc: BestBits List; irp Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC Hi Carlos, Just to be clear, I mentioned fragmentation/balkanization because I think it's a misrepresentation of what's being proposed. Thanks for the additional information. I'm not sure Amsterdam is such a problem, but landing in the UK, as many transatlantic cables do, yes. I was going to mention this in another thread, but perhaps this will do: strongly recommend people read Caspar Bowden's work for the European Parliament on PRISM and FISA. Bowden's been writing about the threat of FISA, etc. for some years, Snowden has made clear just how important his work is. Caspar Bowden speaking at the European Parliament Tuesday Sept 24, Study referred to in the presentation "The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights" (need to remember it's all our rights, not just EU citizens). This earlier document "fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud" very good, BBC article shows Bowden's foresight. The points he makes about an economic response (without some government regulated nationalist/regionalist policy) are sensible. And these: Summary of Caspar, Jacob Applebaum, Bruce Schneier others speaking at an event in Lausanne on Monday also worth reading. Would be wonderful of the recent EU Parliament document linked above could be used as a briefing document for the Emerging Issues session in Bali. Unfortunately I don't think Caspar can attend the IGF. Best, Adam On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Adam & all, > > OK, some comments on this. The "BRICs cable" project contemplates > high-capacity links to the USA and Europe, of course. Politically, with > the current situation, the way this will be done is open to question > regarding partnerships, cost sharing, priorities and so on. In no way > this would be just a firewalled point-to-point cable Brazil-China with > stop-overs in SA & India. > > This proposal of course is a joint venture involving private sector and > the BRICs' countries, and details of this are not yet available as far > as I know. There are budget constraints in all countries involved (or at > least three of them...), so this is not so simple or so immediate. Also, > Brazil is contemplating or actively involved in the deployment of other > new direct links (Africa, Europe, encircling South America etc). > > As in all other new international links Brazil is considering or > participating, the whole idea is to guarantee most direct routes to all > regions in the planet, so that traffic does not need to go through the > USA or Amsterdam or etc whatever its origin/destination. Most large > economies with massive use of the Net (we are about to reach 95 million > users) have the same problem and are considering or practicing a similar > policy. The "Snowden revelations" are just helping to accelerate the > process. > > No one here would be naïve to think that BR-USA links should be > disregarded. To the contrary, we need planning to optimize them, and if > other links come online of course there will be more capacity available > for traffic from/to USA. > > On 10/03/2013 02:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Marilia, >> >> Thanks for this report. >> >> Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern >> about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the >> idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach >> you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this >> mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the >> cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at >> the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect >> we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad >> law.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Sorry for any duplication of this message. >>> >>> To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the >>> summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a >>> new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized >>> by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV >>> Rio de Janeiro. >>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy >>> >>> >>> > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of > the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This > joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and > CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and > emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, > Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> -- 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 10 11:41:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:11:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> I agree about sending a letter of support. . Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more positive directions. And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained through civil society participation someone may even give us some elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to such partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, and offered genuine partnerships. So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so on. parminder On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be > desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of > support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, > perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian > colleagues or through those on her staff who are monitoring these > activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening > her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious > step. > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this > matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group > are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going support > as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to its > success through ensuring that the public interest of all, globally, > are reflected in the Internet governance structure which hopefully > will emerge. > > M > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *matthew shears > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, > we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for > CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should > start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or > desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - > we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up. > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to > be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a > tremendous opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why > don't we start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we > support the idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the > summit? What would we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe > we can use our discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start > drafting such an agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at > least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation > of ICANN would be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" > wrote: > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards > > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can > > participate on an equal footing... > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have > been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not > made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the > number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced > cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I > accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of > course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while > now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its > larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally > anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to > have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to > fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful > implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is > now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) > having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves > anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and > irrelevant. > > -- > > *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. > > > > -- > > 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 11:43:46 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:43:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131010171949.04107494@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <20131010171949.04107494@quill> Message-ID: <130001cec5cf$8a6bdd30$9f439790$@gmail.com> +1 :) M -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:20 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: 'matthew shears'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Michael Gurstein wrote: > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be > desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of support > for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, perhaps even > directly through one or another of our Brazilian colleagues Carlos had the opportunity to gave it to her in person; there's a picture of the event on the IGC website. Specifically, see the first attachment at http://igcaucus.org/letter-international-civil-society-organizations-preside nt-dilma-rousseff-support-her-statement-68th Greetings, Norbert > or through those on her staff who are monitoring these activities; and > who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening her (and Fadi's) > resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious step. > > > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this > matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group > are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going support > as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to its > success through ensuring that the public interest of all, globally, > are reflected in the Internet governance structure which hopefully > will emerge. > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of matthew > shears Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, > we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for > CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should > start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or > desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - > we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up. > > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be > enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start > working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea > but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we > like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions > in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least > from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN > would be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN > has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and > unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the > Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN > towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all > governments) can participate on an equal footing... > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in > proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much > of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of > endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation > (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this > was because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course > the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it > has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the > Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a > discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has > moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. > Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced > cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and > ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and > forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms > at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. > From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 11:53:31 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:53:31 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone (Anja?) to try to get a draft out in the next few days. N From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I agree about sending a letter of support. . Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more positive directions. And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained through civil society participation someone may even give us some elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to such partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, and offered genuine partnerships. So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so on. parminder On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian colleagues or through those on her staff who are monitoring these activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious step. A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going support as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to its success through ensuring that the public interest of all, globally, are reflected in the Internet governance structure which hopefully will emerge. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of matthew shears Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up. On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would be a good thing :) What do others think? Best, Anja On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can participate on an equal footing... It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. -- 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. -- 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: From anriette at apc.org Thu Oct 10 12:00:20 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:00:20 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> Message-ID: <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> I cannot agree more. Not only do I share Rafik's skepticism, I also think we should not fall into the trap of thinking of ICANN (and the ICANN DNS gold rush) as being at the core of the policy-making processes that matter to how people access, use, and develop the internet. That ICANN is now setting broader agendas, along with governments, reflects entirely what is problematic with how power and influence plays out in IG and I find it alarming. Definitely agree with Anja and others who say that CS should get involved in this debate. A critical perspective is needed now more than ever. Anriette On 10/10/2013 16:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi , > > I insist about caution even if it is not popular :) I understand that > some see a window of opportunity and possibility for CS to outline an > agenda and influence a summit (which remains to be defined). > I want CS to be more proactive and set the tone and I found strange > that we are issuing statement to support other statements or > speeches, I would prefer that we support more concrete actions and > real commitments instead than just plain speeches. > > and in particular for Fadi, I would like to ask him to apply what he > is preaching about multistakeholderism and respect process and > stakeholders within ICANN . > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/10 matthew shears > > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That > said, we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its > good for CS to communicate its expectations of such events early > and we should start this process in Bali. Less convinced about > the need (or desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to > all and sundry - we can always note our appreciation in the agenda > we work up. > > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not >> to be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a >> tremendous opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. >> Why don't we start working on another letter to Rousseff, in >> which we support the idea but also start outlining a CS agenda >> for the summit? What would we like to see such a summit >> achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a basis >> from which to start drafting such an agenda. >> >> And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at >> least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation >> of ICANN would be a good thing :) >> >> What do others think? >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" > > wrote: >> >> On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: >>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? >>> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >>> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards >>> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can >>> participate on an equal footing... >> >> It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, >> have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. >> (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was >> disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits >> statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) >> received, though in part I accept that this was because the >> statement was simply too long.) >> >> This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. >> Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a >> while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in >> terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet >> governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of >> course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, >> but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved >> elsewhere. >> >> It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the >> technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on >> Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose >> meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, >> this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With >> Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead >> regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the >> WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. >> >> -- >> >> *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. >> > > -- > > 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 > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Oct 10 12:19:31 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:49:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I unfortunately won't be able to work on this over the next few days, but would be very happy to do so if people agree it can wait until Bali. As I explained earlier, I in any case think that is a good idea, as I believe that the letter really should include a CS agenda (or at least an outline of such an agenda as well), and Bali will give us an opportunity to really work on that. As Parminder also noted, the point is to influence the process now that there still seems a chance of doing so, not just to support it. If others feel, however, that a letter should go out immediately and would like to work on it, I would be very happy for them to go ahead. Thanks and best, Anja On 10 October 2013 21:23, michael gurstein wrote: > I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone (Anja?) > to try to get a draft out in the next few days.**** > > ** ** > > N**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 AM > > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** > > ** ** > > I agree about sending a letter of support. . > Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more positive > directions. > > And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the > stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained through > civil society participation someone may even give us some elevated seats at > the table... Brazil has often jumped to such partnership opportunity with > civil society in other areas, and offered genuine partnerships. > > So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so on. > > parminder**** > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote:**** > > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be > desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of support for > Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, perhaps even directly > through one or another of our Brazilian colleagues or through those on her > staff who are monitoring these activities; and who knows, perhaps even > contributed to strengthening her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a > courageous and even audacious step.**** > > **** > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this > matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group are in > support of this development, intend to provide on-going support as it > develops and further intend to actively contribute to its success through > ensuring that the public interest of all, globally, are reflected in the > Internet governance structure which hopefully will emerge.**** > > **** > > M **** > > **** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] > *On Behalf Of *matthew shears > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** > > **** > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, we > should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for CS to > communicate its expectations of such events early and we should start this > process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or desirability) of > writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - we can always note our > appreciation in the agenda we work up. > **** > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be > enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start > working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but > also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see > such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a > basis from which to start drafting such an agenda.**** > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least > from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would > be a good thing :)**** > > What do others think?**** > > Best, > Anja**** > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote:**** > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote:**** > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote:**** > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder?**** > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance **** > > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards **** > > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can **** > > participate on an equal footing...**** > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in > proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a > secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements > that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation ( > http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was > because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the > writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now > officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the > Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion > forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community > (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they > can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, > this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and > ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves > anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. * > *** > > -- **** > > *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.**** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > **** > > 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**** > > ** ** > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 12:31:10 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:31:10 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131010183110.5dd43926@quill> [With IGC coordinator hat on] Hi Michael Please include IGC's governance mailing list when posting the draft. I hope that the IGC should be able to reach consensus on endorsing a letter along the lines of “we are interested in the planned event, please include international civil society in the preparatory process”. Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:53:31 -0700 schrieb "michael gurstein" : > I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone > (Anja?) to try to get a draft out in the next few days. > > > > N > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I agree about sending a letter of support. . > Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more positive > directions. > > And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the > stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained > through civil society participation someone may even give us some > elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to such > partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, and > offered genuine partnerships. > > So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so on. > > parminder > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be > desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of > support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, > perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian > colleagues or through those on her staff who are monitoring these > activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening > her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious > step. > > > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this > matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group > are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going > support as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to > its success through ensuring that the public interest of all, > globally, are reflected in the Internet governance structure which > hopefully will emerge. > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of matthew > shears Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, > we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for > CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should > start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or > desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - > we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up. > > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be > enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start > working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea > but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we > like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions > in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at > least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of > ICANN would be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN > has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and > unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the > Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN > towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all > governments) can participate on an equal footing... > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in > proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much > of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of > endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation > (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this > was because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course > the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it > has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in > the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a > discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role > has moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation > of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token > and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and > forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms > at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. > From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Oct 10 12:46:05 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:46:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi all, I support the idea of outlining a civil society agenda. Perhaps that agenda could be formatted in such a way that it could be repurposed for other processes, so as not to single out what Parminder aptly describes as an "unborn" initiative. It would be good to use the Best Bits session as an opportunity to develop this agenda, but to continue the discussion online as well, so as not exclude those who are not able to come to Bali. In terms of timing, if I understand correctly, the proposed date for the Brazilian summit is sometime in April 2014. This seems like a good opportunity to note that Access is hosting RightsCon ( http://www.rightscon.org/) in San Francisco from 3-5 March. We have opened up the programming so that anyone can submit a session. Given the timeframe, this could be a good opportunity to broaden support for a civil society agenda and for CS present to strategize in the lead up to the summit. Best, Deborah On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > I cannot agree more. > > Not only do I share Rafik's skepticism, I also think we should not fall > into the trap of thinking of ICANN (and the ICANN DNS gold rush) as being > at the core of the policy-making processes that matter to how people > access, use, and develop the internet. > > That ICANN is now setting broader agendas, along with governments, > reflects entirely what is problematic with how power and influence plays > out in IG and I find it alarming. > > Definitely agree with Anja and others who say that CS should get involved > in this debate. A critical perspective is needed now more than ever. > > Anriette > > > > On 10/10/2013 16:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi , > > I insist about caution even if it is not popular :) I understand that > some see a window of opportunity and possibility for CS to outline an > agenda and influence a summit (which remains to be defined). > I want CS to be more proactive and set the tone and I found strange that > we are issuing statement to support other statements or speeches, I would > prefer that we support more concrete actions and real commitments instead > than just plain speeches. > > and in particular for Fadi, I would like to ask him to apply what he is > preaching about multistakeholderism and respect process and stakeholders > within ICANN . > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/10 matthew shears > >> I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, we >> should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for CS to >> communicate its expectations of such events early and we should start this >> process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or desirability) of >> writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - we can always note our >> appreciation in the agenda we work up. >> >> >> On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be >> enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous >> opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start >> working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but >> also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see >> such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a >> basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. >> >> And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least >> from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would >> be a good thing :) >> >> What do others think? >> >> Best, >> Anja >> On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >> >>> On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? >>> >>> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >>> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards >>> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can >>> participate on an equal footing... >>> >>> >>> It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in >>> proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a >>> secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements >>> that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation ( >>> http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was >>> because the statement was simply too long.) >>> >>> This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course >>> the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has >>> now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in >>> multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the >>> Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion >>> forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. >>> >>> It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical >>> community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. >>> Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced >>> cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. >>> With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, >>> this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *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 | >>> 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. >>> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 10 12:49:17 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:19:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5256DA8D.2020502@itforchange.net> Anja It wont take more than a few hours of work... The time to send something is now, in 3-4 days. A lot would get talked in the next few days and before things get set down CS should put its foot in the door.... see if you can give it some time.. parminder On Thursday 10 October 2013 09:49 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I unfortunately won't be able to work on this over the next few days, > but would be very happy to do so if people agree it can wait until > Bali. As I explained earlier, I in any case think that is a good idea, > as I believe that the letter really should include a CS agenda (or at > least an outline of such an agenda as well), and Bali will give us an > opportunity to really work on that. As Parminder also noted, the point > is to influence the process now that there still seems a chance of > doing so, not just to support it. > > If others feel, however, that a letter should go out immediately and > would like to work on it, I would be very happy for them to go ahead. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > > On 10 October 2013 21:23, michael gurstein > wrote: > > I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone > (Anja?) to try to get a draft out in the next few days. > > N > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 AM > > > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > I agree about sending a letter of support. . > Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more > positive directions. > > And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in > the stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy > gained through civil society participation someone may even give > us some elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to > such partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, > and offered genuine partnerships. > > So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so on. > > parminder > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would > be desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier > letter of support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not > communicated to her, perhaps even directly through one or > another of our Brazilian colleagues or through those on her > staff who are monitoring these activities; and who knows, > perhaps even contributed to strengthening her (and Fadi's) > resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious step. > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions > in this matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) > as a CS group are in support of this development, intend to > provide on-going support as it develops and further intend to > actively contribute to its success through ensuring that the > public interest of all, globally, are reflected in the > Internet governance structure which hopefully will emerge. > > M > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of > *matthew shears > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That > said, we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - > its good for CS to communicate its expectations of such events > early and we should start this process in Bali. Less > convinced about the need (or desirability) of writing letters > of appreciation to all and sundry - we can always note our > appreciation in the agenda we work up. > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is > difficult not to be enthused by this proposal. As Mike > points out, it is a tremendous opportunity for all of us > to engage in this debate. Why don't we start working on > another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea > but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What > would we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can > use our discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start > drafting such an agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as > well, at least from those of us who believe that the > internationalisation of ICANN would be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" > > wrote: > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards > > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can > > participate on an equal footing... > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, > have been in proposing similar advances on the status > quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I > was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the > Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation > (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept > that this was because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's > future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for > the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become > irrelevant in terms of its larger role in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally > anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will > continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the > momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the > technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on > Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose > meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, > this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. > With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging > ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against > reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. > > -- > > *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. > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 12:49:49 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:49:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131010184949.1aaa7595@quill> In order to optimally influence the process, we should have the letter ready early enough to already influence the meeting in which the members of the Brazilian government delegation to the IGF are given their instructions by their superiors. So that the letter will have the greatest possible impact already on the discussions that will certainly take place alongside the IGC. I think that we should go ahead at full steam with this. Since Anja is unavailable to participate in this drafting work, I'd offer myself to participate in this. Still if possible it would be good to have in addition someone with a developing country perspective already involved in the development of the initial draft. Perhaps ideally someone from Brazil. I'll post on the IGC list asking for a volunteer. Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:49:31 +0530 schrieb Anja Kovacs : > I unfortunately won't be able to work on this over the next few days, > but would be very happy to do so if people agree it can wait until > Bali. As I explained earlier, I in any case think that is a good > idea, as I believe that the letter really should include a CS agenda > (or at least an outline of such an agenda as well), and Bali will > give us an opportunity to really work on that. As Parminder also > noted, the point is to influence the process now that there still > seems a chance of doing so, not just to support it. > > If others feel, however, that a letter should go out immediately and > would like to work on it, I would be very happy for them to go ahead. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > > On 10 October 2013 21:23, michael gurstein wrote: > > > I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone > > (Anja?) to try to get a draft out in the next few days.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > N**** > > > > ** ** > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 AM > > > > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** > > > > ** ** > > > > I agree about sending a letter of support. . > > Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more > > positive directions. > > > > And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the > > stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained > > through civil society participation someone may even give us some > > elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to such > > partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, and > > offered genuine partnerships. > > > > So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so > > on. > > > > parminder**** > > > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote:**** > > > > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be > > desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of > > support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, > > perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian > > colleagues or through those on her staff who are monitoring these > > activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to > > strengthening her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous > > and even audacious step.**** > > > > **** > > > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in > > this matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS > > group are in support of this development, intend to provide > > on-going support as it develops and further intend to actively > > contribute to its success through ensuring that the public interest > > of all, globally, are reflected in the Internet governance > > structure which hopefully will emerge.**** > > > > **** > > > > M **** > > > > **** > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] > > *On Behalf Of *matthew shears > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** > > > > **** > > > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That > > said, we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its > > good for CS to communicate its expectations of such events early > > and we should start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the > > need (or desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all > > and sundry - we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we > > work up. **** > > > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** > > > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to > > be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we > > start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support > > the idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What > > would we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our > > discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an > > agenda.**** > > > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at > > least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of > > ICANN would be a good thing :)**** > > > > What do others think?**** > > > > Best, > > Anja**** > > > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" > > wrote:**** > > > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote:**** > > > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria > > wrote:**** > > > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN > > has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and > > unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of > > the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder?**** > > > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet > > Governance **** > > > > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN > > towards **** > > > > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all > > governments) can **** > > > > participate on an equal footing...**** > > > > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been > > in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made > > much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number > > of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced > > cooperation ( http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I > > accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) > > > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of > > course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while > > now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its > > larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally > > anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to > > have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to > > fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. > > > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced > > Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful > > implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is > > now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having > > lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone > > arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. * > > *** > > > > -- **** > > > > *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.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > -- **** > > > > **** > > > > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 12:58:00 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:58:00 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256DA8D.2020502@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> <5256DA8D.2020502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13b101cec5d9$e884de80$b98e9b80$@gmail.com> As it happens I'm leaving for Montreal then Bali on Saturday so I/we need to get this done very very quickly. Not more than three paragraphs are required I would have thought. (If someone is able/willing to do up even the roughest of drafts based on previous such letters I can then do the required editing magic and have a draft for circulation/comment/revision by Sunday. M From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:49 AM To: Anja Kovacs Cc: michael gurstein; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Anja It wont take more than a few hours of work... The time to send something is now, in 3-4 days. A lot would get talked in the next few days and before things get set down CS should put its foot in the door.... see if you can give it some time.. parminder On Thursday 10 October 2013 09:49 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: I unfortunately won't be able to work on this over the next few days, but would be very happy to do so if people agree it can wait until Bali. As I explained earlier, I in any case think that is a good idea, as I believe that the letter really should include a CS agenda (or at least an outline of such an agenda as well), and Bali will give us an opportunity to really work on that. As Parminder also noted, the point is to influence the process now that there still seems a chance of doing so, not just to support it. If others feel, however, that a letter should go out immediately and would like to work on it, I would be very happy for them to go ahead. Thanks and best, Anja On 10 October 2013 21:23, michael gurstein wrote: I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone (Anja?) to try to get a draft out in the next few days. N From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I agree about sending a letter of support. . Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more positive directions. And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained through civil society participation someone may even give us some elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to such partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, and offered genuine partnerships. So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so on. parminder On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian colleagues or through those on her staff who are monitoring these activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious step. A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going support as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to its success through ensuring that the public interest of all, globally, are reflected in the Internet governance structure which hopefully will emerge. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of matthew shears Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up. On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would be a good thing :) What do others think? Best, Anja On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can participate on an equal footing... It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. -- 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. -- 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 -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 3 12:16:12 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 01:16:12 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Is the bestbits list moderated Message-ID: <2E004E5A-B343-4B24-B495-0ECDC4831EAB@glocom.ac.jp> Is this list moderated? Messages sent at different times arrive together. When multiple lists are cc'd (and I'm sorry for that, many threads are duplicated on the IGC, IRP and bestbits lists) bestbits tend arrive last. Just wondering. It does seem a bit of a controlled environment given civil society's usual modalities (messy though they are.) Adam From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 12:58:00 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:58:00 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131010184949.1aaa7595@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> <20131010184949.1aaa7595@quill> Message-ID: <13bc01cec5d9$e9a5dee0$bcf19ca0$@gmail.com> Good, I wonder if Graciela would be able/willing to do this? Param, could you ask her do you think? M -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:50 AM To: Anja Kovacs Cc: michael gurstein; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In order to optimally influence the process, we should have the letter ready early enough to already influence the meeting in which the members of the Brazilian government delegation to the IGF are given their instructions by their superiors. So that the letter will have the greatest possible impact already on the discussions that will certainly take place alongside the IGC. I think that we should go ahead at full steam with this. Since Anja is unavailable to participate in this drafting work, I'd offer myself to participate in this. Still if possible it would be good to have in addition someone with a developing country perspective already involved in the development of the initial draft. Perhaps ideally someone from Brazil. I'll post on the IGC list asking for a volunteer. Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:49:31 +0530 schrieb Anja Kovacs : > I unfortunately won't be able to work on this over the next few days, > but would be very happy to do so if people agree it can wait until > Bali. As I explained earlier, I in any case think that is a good idea, > as I believe that the letter really should include a CS agenda (or at > least an outline of such an agenda as well), and Bali will give us an > opportunity to really work on that. As Parminder also noted, the point > is to influence the process now that there still seems a chance of > doing so, not just to support it. > > If others feel, however, that a letter should go out immediately and > would like to work on it, I would be very happy for them to go ahead. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > > On 10 October 2013 21:23, michael gurstein wrote: > > > I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone > > (Anja?) to try to get a draft out in the next few days.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > N**** > > > > ** ** > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 AM > > > > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** > > > > ** ** > > > > I agree about sending a letter of support. . > > Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more > > positive directions. > > > > And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the > > stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained > > through civil society participation someone may even give us some > > elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to such > > partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, and > > offered genuine partnerships. > > > > So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so > > on. > > > > parminder**** > > > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote:**** > > > > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be > > desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of > > support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, > > perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian > > colleagues or through those on her staff who are monitoring these > > activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening > > her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous and even > > audacious step.**** > > > > **** > > > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in > > this matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS > > group are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going > > support as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to > > its success through ensuring that the public interest of all, > > globally, are reflected in the Internet governance structure which > > hopefully will emerge.**** > > > > **** > > > > M **** > > > > **** > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > stbits.net>] > > *On Behalf Of *matthew shears > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** > > > > **** > > > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, > > we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good > > for CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we > > should start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need > > (or desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and > > sundry - we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work > > up. **** > > > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** > > > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to > > be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we > > start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the > > idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would > > we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our > > discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an > > agenda.**** > > > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at > > least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of > > ICANN would be a good thing :)**** > > > > What do others think?**** > > > > Best, > > Anja**** > > > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" > > wrote:**** > > > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote:**** > > > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria > > wrote:**** > > > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN > > has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and > > unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of > > the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder?**** > > > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > > **** > > > > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN > > towards **** > > > > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all > > governments) can **** > > > > participate on an equal footing...**** > > > > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been > > in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made > > much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number > > of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation > > ( http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that > > this was because the statement was simply too long.) > > > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of > > course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, > > but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger > > role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally > > anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have > > a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a > > larger role has moved elsewhere. > > > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced > > Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation > > of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly > > token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost > > patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing > > against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. * > > *** > > > > -- **** > > > > *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.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > -- **** > > > > **** > > > > 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 10 12:58:58 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:58:58 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> <5256C7F8.20604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 17:35 10/10/2013, Evan Greer wrote: >Our feeling was that this does represent a potential shift, and >Brazil's orientation on this is clearly better than many other governments. Dilma could hardly refuse Fadi's trap. He came to offer (poisonous offer) more than what she determinedly asked for with full CS support. Now the game for her is to reverse the trap and outsmart USSH Inc. (US Stake Holders incorporated). Your proposition may help her: Carlos could propose to hold and invite her to a "Civil Society summit" in preparation (not in parallel) to the Montevideoan's summit. With Dilma's sponsoring he could even call for logistical help from Anatel. Dilma would then be the first to achieve a multistakeholder process where a counter-summit would merge (and necessarily influence) with an official summit. No one could object to the whole thing not being on an equal footing Please remember what Carlos wrote ten days ago about our new "family" members: "The transnational oligopoly of telecommunications companies here (Claro Mexico, Telef a de Espa Telecom Italia, Oi/Portugal Telcom, and GVT/Vivendi) seems quite isolated now on its insistence in inserting violations of net neutrality in the MC. But we cannot underestimate its lobbying power in Congress." Fadi brought the response: we will discuss net neutrality violations with those who hold stakes in their perpetrations. We then are entitled to say: let us also discuss them with those who experience them. This way we will squeeze Dilma (she cannot [and do not want to] refuse us) into squeezing the USSH leaders. jfc From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Oct 10 13:00:28 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:30:28 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <13bc01cec5d9$e9a5dee0$bcf19ca0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> <20131010184949.1aaa7595@quill> <13bc01cec5d9$e9a5dee0$bcf19ca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am happy to contribute to text if someone else starts the very rough first draft. Anja On 10 October 2013 22:28, michael gurstein wrote: > Good, I wonder if Graciela would be able/willing to do this? > > Param, could you ask her do you think? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:50 AM > To: Anja Kovacs > Cc: michael gurstein; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will > host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > In order to optimally influence the process, we should have the letter > ready > early enough to already influence the meeting in which the members of the > Brazilian government delegation to the IGF are given their instructions by > their superiors. So that the letter will have the greatest possible impact > already on the discussions that will certainly take place alongside the > IGC. > > I think that we should go ahead at full steam with this. > > Since Anja is unavailable to participate in this drafting work, I'd offer > myself to participate in this. > > Still if possible it would be good to have in addition someone with a > developing country perspective already involved in the development of the > initial draft. Perhaps ideally someone from Brazil. I'll post on the IGC > list asking for a volunteer. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:49:31 +0530 > schrieb Anja Kovacs : > > > I unfortunately won't be able to work on this over the next few days, > > but would be very happy to do so if people agree it can wait until > > Bali. As I explained earlier, I in any case think that is a good idea, > > as I believe that the letter really should include a CS agenda (or at > > least an outline of such an agenda as well), and Bali will give us an > > opportunity to really work on that. As Parminder also noted, the point > > is to influence the process now that there still seems a chance of > > doing so, not just to support it. > > > > If others feel, however, that a letter should go out immediately and > > would like to work on it, I would be very happy for them to go ahead. > > > > Thanks and best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > On 10 October 2013 21:23, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > > I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone > > > (Anja?) to try to get a draft out in the next few days.**** > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > N**** > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > > > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 AM > > > > > > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: > > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > I agree about sending a letter of support. . > > > Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more > > > positive directions. > > > > > > And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the > > > stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained > > > through civil society participation someone may even give us some > > > elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to such > > > partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, and > > > offered genuine partnerships. > > > > > > So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so > > > on. > > > > > > parminder**** > > > > > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote:**** > > > > > > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be > > > desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of > > > support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, > > > perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian > > > colleagues or through those on her staff who are monitoring these > > > activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening > > > her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous and even > > > audacious step.**** > > > > > > **** > > > > > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in > > > this matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS > > > group are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going > > > support as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to > > > its success through ensuring that the public interest of all, > > > globally, are reflected in the Internet governance structure which > > > hopefully will emerge.**** > > > > > > **** > > > > > > M **** > > > > > > **** > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > > > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > stbits.net>] > > > *On Behalf Of *matthew shears > > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > > > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: > > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014**** > > > > > > **** > > > > > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, > > > we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good > > > for CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we > > > should start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need > > > (or desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and > > > sundry - we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work > > > up. **** > > > > > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** > > > > > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to > > > be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > > > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we > > > start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the > > > idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would > > > we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our > > > discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an > > > agenda.**** > > > > > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at > > > least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of > > > ICANN would be a good thing :)**** > > > > > > What do others think?**** > > > > > > Best, > > > Anja**** > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" > > > wrote:**** > > > > > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote:**** > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria > > > wrote:**** > > > > > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN > > > has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and > > > unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of > > > the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder?**** > > > > > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > > > **** > > > > > > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN > > > towards **** > > > > > > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all > > > governments) can **** > > > > > > participate on an equal footing...**** > > > > > > > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been > > > in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made > > > much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number > > > of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation > > > ( http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that > > > this was because the statement was simply too long.) > > > > > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of > > > course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, > > > but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger > > > role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally > > > anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have > > > a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a > > > larger role has moved elsewhere. > > > > > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > > > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced > > > Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation > > > of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly > > > token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost > > > patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing > > > against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. * > > > *** > > > > > > -- **** > > > > > > *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.**** > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > -- **** > > > > > > **** > > > > > > 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**** > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 13:11:30 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:11:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just >>>> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting >>>> that into play… >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite >>>> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my >>>> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >>>> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) rules >>>> and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it >>> is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 13:13:19 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:13:19 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5256E02F.8060402@cafonso.ca> It takes a lot more to get me excited, Rafik! A lot more... :) frt rgds --c.a. On 10/10/2013 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > I understand your excitement and pride as Brazilian but as Tunisian I > am more cautious with what my gov can claim :) (I would instead wait > till marco civil to be voted to celebrate for example but yes I am not > familiar with Brazilian internal politics) > not sure what is your take regarding IGF, ywa you are talking about > interesting process , but we dont have such process now and it looks > more as an interpretation and wish than something concrete. are you > looking to replace IGF by a summit yet to be defined? > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/10 Carlos A. Afonso > > > I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We > need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, > and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming > suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have strong > representation in this process. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/09/2013 10:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hello, > > > > maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and > excitement > > emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering > about > > the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of > > governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those > > familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more > than IGF > > alike. > > while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of > > conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we > welcome such > > summit? > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > > >> > > > > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > > > >> wrote: > > > > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this > happen. > > > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. > > Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for > a new > > game which will reference those already played but need not be > > limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. > > > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the > > President will work around existing UN schedules to extent > > feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is > > probably not what was just agreed. > > > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy > process > > assessment. > > > > 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, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > >> < > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > >; NCSG List > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host > > world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the > > red interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the > > WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely > independent? > > During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that > Brazil > > wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt > > envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes > will be > > connected. > > > > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > > >> wrote: > > > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > > > Dear people > > > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some > > editing) of the > > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff > > and ICANN's > > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the > end. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > > > >From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the > > necessary changes to > > Internet governance. After meeting with the president > of the > > Internet > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its > > acronym in > > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to > > meet global > > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's > > leadership on this > > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening > > of the 68th > > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United > States. > > "The world > > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep > > conviction, with > > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many > > people around the > > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we > > have with the > > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the > speech by > > Dilma was > > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the > > communication of > > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very > > president, > > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to > > ask the > > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to > > ensure that we > > can all get together around a new model of governance in > > which all are > > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future > > decisions on > > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the > > principles of > > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil > which > > is going > > through the National Congress. > > > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications > > Minister Paulo > > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions > > about changes > > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the > > arrangements should > > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new > > governing body of > > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, > > not just the > > government. > > > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that > > requires active > > participation by governments, their respective agencies > > within the > > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil > > society, the > > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," > Chehadé > > defended. > > For the president of the corporation, academics and > > industrialists need > > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on > rights and > > carry out > > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies > > must also > > attend the conference."They are integral part of the > family > > with which > > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, > > President Dilma > > agreed that changes in network governance must occur > > multilaterally and > > with the participation of all actors who engage the > > internet, and said > > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious > > interests to > > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister > > said that the > > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in > > April 2014 in > > Rio de Janeiro. > > > > Source : Agência Brazil > > > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir > as mudanças > > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se > encontrar > > com o > > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de > > Nomes e Números > > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta > > Dilma Rousseff > > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores > > interessados > > no tema. > > > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança > > brasileira nesta > > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff > discursou na > > abertura da > > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos > > Estados Unidos. “O > > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com > profunda > > convicção, > > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas > > pessoas, em todo > > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido > > quebrada que > > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o > > discurso de Dilma > > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a > > comunicação de > > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria > > presidenta, a > > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim > solicitar > > à presidenta > > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a > > assegurar que > > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de > > governança, em > > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann > > disse que as > > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a > > internet devem > > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que > > tramita no > > Congresso Nacional. > > > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das > > Comunicações, Paulo > > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os > > debates sobre > > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as > > articulações devem > > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo > > órgão gestor da > > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, > não só > > do governo. > > > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige > > participação > > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos > órgãos no > > âmbito das > > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da > > sociedade civil, > > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet > > funcionar”, defendeu > > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e > > industriais > > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o > direito > > e fazem a > > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de > > telecomunicações devem > > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte > integrante > > da família > > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo > > Bernardo, a > > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na > governança da > > rede devem > > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de > todos > > os atores > > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode > > “permitir que > > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos > interfiram na > > livre > > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão > > da presidenta > > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 13:41:45 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:41:45 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <13b101cec5d9$e884de80$b98e9b80$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <12b501cec5ca$6008d3e0$201a7ba0$@gmail.com> <5256CAB0.90104@itforchange.net> <132e01cec5d0$e6c458e0$b44d0aa0$@gmail.com> <5256DA8D.2020502@itforchange.net> <13b101cec5d9$e884de80$b98e9b80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131010194145.434ec422@quill> Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:58:00 -0700 schrieb "michael gurstein" : > As it happens I'm leaving for Montreal then Bali on Saturday so I/we > need to get this done very very quickly. Not more than three > paragraphs are required I would have thought. (If someone is > able/willing to do up even the roughest of drafts based on previous > such letters I can then do the required editing magic and have a > draft for circulation/comment/revision by Sunday. Does this satisfy your requirements for “the roughest of drafts”? http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 Greetings, Norbert > > > > M > > > > From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:49 AM > To: Anja Kovacs > Cc: michael gurstein; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > Anja > > It wont take more than a few hours of work... The time to send > something is now, in 3-4 days. A lot would get talked in the next few > days and before things get set down CS should put its foot in the > door.... see if you can give it some time.. > > parminder > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 09:49 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I unfortunately won't be able to work on this over the next few days, > but would be very happy to do so if people agree it can wait until > Bali. As I explained earlier, I in any case think that is a good > idea, as I believe that the letter really should include a CS agenda > (or at least an outline of such an agenda as well), and Bali will > give us an opportunity to really work on that. As Parminder also > noted, the point is to influence the process now that there still > seems a chance of doing so, not just to support it. > > If others feel, however, that a letter should go out immediately and > would like to work on it, I would be very happy for them to go ahead. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > > > On 10 October 2013 21:23, michael gurstein wrote: > > I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone > (Anja?) to try to get a draft out in the next few days. > > > > N > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 AM > > > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I agree about sending a letter of support. . > Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more positive > directions. > > And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the > stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained > through civil society participation someone may even give us some > elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to such > partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, and > offered genuine partnerships. > > So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative, and so on. > > parminder > > On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be > desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of > support for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, > perhaps even directly through one or another of our Brazilian > colleagues or through those on her staff who are monitoring these > activities; and who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening > her (and Fadi's) resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious > step. > > > > A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this > matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group > are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going > support as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to > its success through ensuring that the public interest of all, > globally, are reflected in the Internet governance structure which > hopefully will emerge. > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of matthew > shears Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, > we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for > CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should > start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or > desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - > we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up. > > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be > enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start > working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea > but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we > like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions > in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at > least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of > ICANN would be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN > has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and > unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the > Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN > towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all > governments) can participate on an equal footing... > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in > proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much > of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of > endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation > (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this > was because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course > the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it > has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in > the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a > discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role > has moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation > of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token > and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and > forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms > at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. > From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 13:59:35 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:59:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> +1 M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 10 14:55:56 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:55:56 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256F28A.7090305@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <6B129299-0907-4D37-A614-9DCF73722D89@acm.org> <5256F28A.7090305@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: At 20:31 10/10/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >Avri, so did (or it seems to have done) the ARIN fellow. This was signed >as a statement of the "leaders" of whatever, so it saves them in a >certain way from having their ears pulled when they return to their home >bases, so to speak. This has only one realistly serious explanation from gathered inputs. Everyone in Montevideo was under the clear understanding that there was a metaconsensus. This is in disagreement with legal and democratic rules, but in agreement with MS spirit. - OpenStand IEEE was not represented so it was purely an Internet affair. - no one feared his constituants so the rough-metaconsensus had to be assumed to be deep in Boards and sub-leadership. The reference to the IANA NTIA NOI by John Curan and other direct and indirect inputs clearly indicates the sopurce of inspiration of the metaconsensus. Leaders, together with the NTIA, have the clear common understanding that this is the correct move to maintain/protec/save the US StakeHolders market statUS-quo, bringing in the Telcos in support of the "family". This is why I call this USSH Inc. The stakeholdership is in the US business. If this gurantees a stable internet due to further European, Asian, etc. other business stakeholderships competition it can be a good point for us, as long as we do not ally with one of them against the others. jfc From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Oct 10 15:01:01 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:01:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear people, For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the Summit??) In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. All the best joana On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > +1 > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM > To: McTim > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik > Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will > host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Dear compa McT, > > You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... > :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel > disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to > finally move on. > > At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement > at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil > society > defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her > twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of > rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers > in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by > the > presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? > :) > > Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet > another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, > as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that > that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. > > All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the > government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, > who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance > we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom > oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. > Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those > principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar > proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes > as well. > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > > hold next year a Global Summit" > > > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this > >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this > >>>> going and putting that into play. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going > >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and > >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite > >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now > >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it > >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that > >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are > >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from > >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 15:31:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:31:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <154201cec5ef$4b061af0$e11250d0$@gmail.com> Hi Joana, .and of course, the grass is always greener. But just as it was the right thing to do to endorse Dilma's UN speech (and who knows what positive impact that may have had with her or with the Montevideo crew) and putting our collective shoulder to that wheel could not but have had some influence on what I see as the very positive outcome of the Montevideo statement and the meeting next April. So endorsing a meeting which so clearly breaks through the status quo bubble within which Internet governance has been held captive and suborned to the evident security and other interests of certain parties (and which the next round at Bali would have done little to correct); while perhaps a wee bit of a move based on faith (but also based on a positive recent national track record in these areas), I think it is a reasonable step to take and perhaps provides us with an opening for participation/dialogue from the beginning which might otherwise not have been available. M From: Joana Varon [mailto:joana at varonferraz.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:01 PM Dear people, For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the Summit??) In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. All the best joana On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 3 12:21:47 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 01:21:47 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Is the bestbits list moderated In-Reply-To: <2E004E5A-B343-4B24-B495-0ECDC4831EAB@glocom.ac.jp> References: <2E004E5A-B343-4B24-B495-0ECDC4831EAB@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <3DA7F676-2A27-4CEF-8F39-31241105124B@glocom.ac.jp> And of course answering my own question the message below appeared immediately. Wrong. Apologies. Adam On Oct 4, 2013, at 1:16 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Is this list moderated? > > Messages sent at different times arrive together. When multiple lists are cc'd (and I'm sorry for that, many threads are duplicated on the IGC, IRP and bestbits lists) bestbits tend arrive last. > > Just wondering. It does seem a bit of a controlled environment given civil society's usual modalities (messy though they are.) > > Adam From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 15:41:44 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:41:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive that the current IGF 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in the summit 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the idea, and not the institutions 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder principle 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope the idea itself. Best Nnenna On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear people, > > For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN > have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or > right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential > elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter > congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. > > But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda > online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings > in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the > Summit??) > > In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with > the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or > other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the > government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the > principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). > > I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I > really need more inputs to see the big picture. > > All the best > > joana > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> +1 >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. >> Afonso >> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >> To: McTim >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; >> Rafik >> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List >> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will >> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Dear compa McT, >> >> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >> view... >> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel >> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to >> finally move on. >> >> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >> statement >> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil >> society >> defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her >> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of >> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers >> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by >> the >> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? >> :) >> >> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet >> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, >> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that >> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. >> >> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the >> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the >> ITU, >> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance >> we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom >> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar >> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >> disputes >> as well. >> >> [] fraterno >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we >> > hold next year a Global Summit" >> > >> > Seem fairly clear to me. >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >> wrote: >> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein > > >> wrote: >> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >> >>>> going and putting that into play. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 15:58:03 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:03 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] CGI.br resolution in support of the letter of international orgs to Dilma Rousseff Message-ID: <525706CB.7080300@cafonso.ca> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 16:03:45 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:03:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:32 AM, avri wrote: > Hi, > > I think this is a good approach. And I agree that expressing appreciation > of the direction they seem to be leading towards, combined with a CS > proposal would be a good outcome of the BestBits meeting. > > > avri > > Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Valeria Betancourt > Date: 10/10/2013 09:11 (GMT-05:00) > To: Anja Kovacs > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm ,"bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > <" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will > host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for > expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the > summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do > you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? > > Valeria > > On 10/10/2013, at 0:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be > enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start > working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but > also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see > such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a > basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least > from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would > be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > >> On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: >> >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? >> >> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards >> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can >> participate on an equal footing... >> >> >> It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in >> proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a >> secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements >> that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation ( >> http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was >> because the statement was simply too long.) >> >> This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the >> writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now >> officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in >> multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the >> Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion >> forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. >> >> It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical >> community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. >> Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced >> cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. >> With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, >> this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and >> irrelevant. >> >> -- >> >> *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. >> > > > > > > -- *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: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Oct 10 17:13:44 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:13:44 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <6B129299-0907-4D37-A614-9DCF73722D89@acm.org> <5256F28A.7090305@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <7BA50BC9-49A3-4FFA-80B9-E864E15080F3@arin.net> At 20:31 10/10/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Avri, so did (or it seems to have done) the ARIN fellow. This was signed > as a statement of the "leaders" of whatever, so it saves them in a > certain way from having their ears pulled when they return to their home > bases, so to speak. Just to be clear - ARIN fully supports the Montevideo Statement; it was signed by me, but it was also approved in advance by the ARIN Board (which happened quite quickly as the positions therein were already positions of public record of ARIN and discussed with our members.) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 17:50:36 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:50:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <000c01cec602$c79d4490$56d7cdb0$@gmail.com> My take is that many in the technical community are feeling appalled and betrayed by what they/we have learned through Snowden. These are folks who helped build the tech of the Internet not for dotcom millions or to support one foreign/security policy or another but rather because they believed that the capacity for networking and communications that they were enabling would contribute to human betterment (and I would guess, for the sheer joy of solving the technical problems involved. They more than anyone else now feel the sting of betrayal both professional (what were they building) and personal (who was telling them the truth and who wasn't) and they even more than others realize how much of the Internet was built on trust and continues to operate on the basis of trust, how fragile trust is, how quickly it disappears and how difficult it is to rebuild it (and whatever else relies on it) when it is gone. The notice from the EFF concerning its withdrawal from the GNI, I just circulated is perhaps the first among many such formal withdrawals of trust and long term collaborations because of what has been revealed by Snowden but most definitely not the last. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:02 PM To: Raul Echeberria Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Raul, On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > > Carlos: > > I agree with you that the President Rousseff position is of course not based on the Montevideo statement. It should be very very arrogant to think that. as well as not physically possible (unless you had a time machine). My point to Carlos and MG was that the T&A are taking the lead on this in the spirit of "continuing cooperation". My reaction was also motivated by Jeremy saying; "It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation." Which is 180 degrees different from my analysis. It seems to me that ISOC and the other Montevideo signatories are stronger in the WGEC becasue of these 2 events. Would it be possible to disclose if the Summit was discussed in Montevideo? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Oct 10 19:35:18 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:35:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the initiative at this point. The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and head of ICANN. To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion around this important development. Best regards, Deborah On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Dear all > > > 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil society, > it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive that the > current IGF > 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way > understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". > 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are working > on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues intend to > play key roles in the summit. > 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in the > summit > 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation > 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles that > CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue > during the BB meeting in Bali. > > > If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection > processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to > sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 > > I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and I'm > happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I do > not, here are my ideas: > > 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the > idea, and not the institutions > 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage > 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder > principle > 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing > 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals > 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope the > idea itself. > > Best > > > Nnenna > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN >> have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or >> right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential >> elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter >> congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. >> >> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda >> online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings >> in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the >> Summit??) >> >> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this >> with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society >> or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the >> government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the >> principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >> >> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I >> really need more inputs to see the big picture. >> >> All the best >> >> joana >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. >>> Afonso >>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>> To: McTim >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; >>> Rafik >>> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List >>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will >>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>> >>> Dear compa McT, >>> >>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >>> view... >>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel >>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals >>> to >>> finally move on. >>> >>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >>> statement >>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil >>> society >>> defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and >>> her >>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of >>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP >>> addressers >>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by >>> the >>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that >>> proposal? :) >>> >>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet >>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called >>> IGF, >>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that >>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. >>> >>> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the >>> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the >>> ITU, >>> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of >>> governance >>> we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational >>> telecom >>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar >>> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >>> disputes >>> as well. >>> >>> [] fraterno >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we >>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>> > >>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >>> wrote: >>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>> >> >>> >> --c.a. >>> >> >>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein < >>> gurstein at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Oct 10 20:26:44 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:26:44 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. Ian Peter From: Deborah Brown Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM To: Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear all, I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the initiative at this point. The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and head of ICANN. To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion around this important development. Best regards, Deborah On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Dear all 1.. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive that the current IGF 2.. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". 3.. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. 4.. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in the summit 5.. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation 6.. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: 1.. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the idea, and not the institutions 2.. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage 3.. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder principle 4.. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing 5.. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals 6.. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope the idea itself. Best Nnenna On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: Dear people, For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the Summit??) In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. All the best joana On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 10 22:15:38 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:15:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 02:26 11/10/2013, Ian Peter wrote: >I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information >emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have >a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely >attendees, and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite >likely more information will emerge in the next week or so, >therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then try to >find out a little more. +1 John Curan, Russ Housley, etc. have documented that they have discussed the Montevideo statement with their boards however it only presented their long standing position. In the CS case there is no long standing position since the situation is new. It would neither be nor look serious not to democractically proceed, after having listen to all the inputs from Seoul, Bali, the WGEC preparation, the EU positions, etc. jfc From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 10 23:14:58 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:14:58 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> Message-ID: <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> On 11/10/13 00:00, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > I cannot agree more. > > Not only do I share Rafik's skepticism, I also think we should not > fall into the trap of thinking of ICANN (and the ICANN DNS gold rush) > as being at the core of the policy-making processes that matter to how > people access, use, and develop the internet. > > That ICANN is now setting broader agendas, along with governments, > reflects entirely what is problematic with how power and influence > plays out in IG and I find it alarming. > > Definitely agree with Anja and others who say that CS should get > involved in this debate. A critical perspective is needed now more > than ever. My first thought too was that this was opportunism on ICANN's part (and, heck, probably on Dilma's too), but so what? When two top leaders have done more in one day to open the doors to Internet governance reform than the IGF MAG has done in eight years, hurrah for opportunism - let's make the most of it. But I also agree that the proposed letter is a bit light on, and that we should develop more of an agenda for the event before sending such a letter. This can, as Deborah said, be done online and in person at the Best Bits meeting, and should be an output of the meeting which we open for endorsements and IGC consensus call then. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Oct 11 00:12:15 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:42:15 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Having had a look at the draft letter after a good night's sleep, I agree with Deborah and others, and will stick to my initial position that we should take some time to develop our own agenda before dashing this off. As someone else noted in this very long thread, doing so can also be of value not only for this event but in a more general sense. We needn't necessarily agree on answers, but it could be powerful if we could at least collectively put forward (some of) the questions to be asked - about CS involvement as much as about the role of governments. Could this, for example, be an appropriate place to start pushing a debate on the need to update the "respective roles and responsibilities" clause in the Tunis Agenda, or at least the way we read it? Even if we decide not to ask for it here, that is one item that could be added to a CS agenda for the reform of Internet governance. Sending letters that are too generic might also lead to them getting ignored, which is obviously something we want to avoid. Ideally, the news that a CS letter is on the way should fill the recipient with a pleasant mix of excitement and apprehension ;) My two paise, Anja On Oct 11, 2013 8:45 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > On 11/10/13 00:00, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > I cannot agree more. > > Not only do I share Rafik's skepticism, I also think we should not fall > into the trap of thinking of ICANN (and the ICANN DNS gold rush) as being > at the core of the policy-making processes that matter to how people > access, use, and develop the internet. > > That ICANN is now setting broader agendas, along with governments, > reflects entirely what is problematic with how power and influence plays > out in IG and I find it alarming. > > Definitely agree with Anja and others who say that CS should get involved > in this debate. A critical perspective is needed now more than ever. > > > My first thought too was that this was opportunism on ICANN's part (and, > heck, probably on Dilma's too), but so what? When two top leaders have > done more in one day to open the doors to Internet governance reform than > the IGF MAG has done in eight years, hurrah for opportunism - let's make > the most of it. > > But I also agree that the proposed letter is a bit light on, and that we > should develop more of an agenda for the event before sending such a > letter. This can, as Deborah said, be done online and in person at the > Best Bits meeting, and should be an output of the meeting which we open for > endorsements and IGC consensus call then. > > -- > > *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: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 3 12:23:33 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 00:23:33 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Is the bestbits list moderated In-Reply-To: <2E004E5A-B343-4B24-B495-0ECDC4831EAB@glocom.ac.jp> References: <2E004E5A-B343-4B24-B495-0ECDC4831EAB@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1BDC6096-8C82-4EE3-A528-88AC446CF95D@ciroap.org> On 04/10/2013, at 12:16 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Is this list moderated? > > Messages sent at different times arrive together. When multiple lists are cc'd (and I'm sorry for that, many threads are duplicated on the IGC, IRP and bestbits lists) bestbits tend arrive last. > > Just wondering. It does seem a bit of a controlled environment given civil society's usual modalities (messy though they are.) No, the sudden influx of messages just now was not due to moderation, it was due to a technical fault. My apologies. Messages that will typically be moderated are replies cross-posted to several lists, where the sender of the reply is not a member of the Best Bits list. In such cases you can expect the email to come through later, if at all, on the Best Bits list. The sender will also receive a moderation notification. To avoid this, they can join the 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 01:32:05 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:02:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a tide/ in the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its interest... Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no good... Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains we can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the appropriate response. ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support this proposal. In supporting it, we would only be saying - (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden manner, (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of status quo,and that (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, saying this is not at all what we bargained for) So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society support to have this kind of impact.... Parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. > We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better > idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, > and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more > information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we > should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. > Ian Peter > *From:* Deborah Brown > *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM > *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > Dear all, > I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned > that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of > us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make > more sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of > the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop > a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about > the initiative at this point. > The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) > does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people > have expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest > endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet > complete. Of course the text of the letter could change dramatically > in just a few hours ;) > I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on > communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be > more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian > president and head of ICANN. > To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is > hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned > above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any > case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the > discussion around this important development. > Best regards, > Deborah > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > Dear all > > 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil > society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open > and inclusive that the current IGF > 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way > understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". > 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are > working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and > Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. > 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue > in the summit > 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation > 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles > that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated > to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. > > If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS > Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use > that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 > > I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online > and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to > surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: > > 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is > the idea, and not the institutions > 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage > 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder > principle > 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing > 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals > 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope > the idea itself. > > Best > > Nnenna > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon > > wrote: > > Dear people, > > For the level of information I have (which is basically: > Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet > after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on > Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), > I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating > for something I dont really know what it is. > > But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on > our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, > during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all > this besides participating in the Summit??) > > In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and > discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian > colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what > is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will > bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the > principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). > > I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious > position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. > All the best > > joana > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein > > wrote: > > +1 > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] On Behalf Of > Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM > To: McTim > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; michael gurstein; > Lee W McKnight; Rafik > Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >,; NCSG List > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & > Chehade: Brazil will > host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Dear compa McT, > > You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change > your logical view... > :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all > sectors who feel > disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its > concrete proposals to > finally move on. > > At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- > Rousseff's statement > at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles > most of civil society > defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio > program and her > twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary > framework of > rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting > of IP addressers > in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi > just dropped by the > presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell > that proposal? :) > > Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a > proposal for yet > another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting > space called IGF, > as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major > achievement that > that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort > jointly with BR. > > All the more so because, as you know, there are strong > sectors within the > government who would love to bring the root-zone to the > purview of the ITU, > who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative > model of governance > we defend, and who are basically associated with the > transnational telecom > oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. > Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to > defend those > principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the > meeting with thar > proposal was a major political milestone for her in those > internal disputes > as well. > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our > invitation that we > > hold next year a Global Summit" > > > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > > wrote: > >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times > more... :) > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein > > > wrote: > >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be > wrong but this > >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for > getting this > >>>> going and putting that into play. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of > Brazil is going > >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to > discuss names and > >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing > the quite > >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the > IGF, the now > >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status > quo which it > >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules > and regs. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again > several times that > >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the > Montevideoans) that are > >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the > Summit comes from > >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 01:39:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:09:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok that we can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential game changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to be setting in)... parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: > Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a tide/ in the > /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... > > Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... > President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a > regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even > announced the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high > prominence, and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it > plays its cards well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use > to further its interest... > > Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - > real interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have > to take our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally > paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are real differences > of views, well, that counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch > attitude would do us no good... > > Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains > we can make... And others must also contribute what they think are > risks or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk > more, do face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own > view, is not the appropriate response. > > ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up > to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for > democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - > BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN > GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see > what needs to be changed about the global governance of the Internet. > Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and even declares a > possible timeline, just like that, off-hand.... That is leadership > material. That is all that has happened, and that is all anyone knows > has happened. There is nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly > become complicit to if they support this proposal. > > In supporting it, we would only be saying - > (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in > global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, > (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden > manner, > (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of > the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - > and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and > defender of status quo,and that > (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all > action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... > > Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the > proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly > withdraw our support, saying this is not at all what we bargained for) > > So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a > statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when > people are still wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and > with what implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this > thing somewhat trilateral from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - > ICANN tech community) We may not succeed, but we must try. .... In a > few weeks, the initiative would already be too solidified in fact, or > in people's mind for civil society support to have this kind of impact.... > > Parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. >> We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better >> idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, >> and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more >> information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we >> should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. >> Ian Peter >> *From:* Deborah Brown >> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> Dear all, >> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit >> concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter >> before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if >> it might make more sense to continue this discussion online and take >> advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us >> attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, >> we know so little about the initiative at this point. >> The draft text (available here: >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture the >> cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I also have >> concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco >> Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of course the >> text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) >> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on >> communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be >> more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian >> president and head of ICANN. >> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is >> hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned >> above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any >> case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the >> discussion around this important development. >> Best regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma > > wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil >> society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open >> and inclusive that the current IGF >> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any >> way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". >> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are >> working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and >> Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. >> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue >> in the summit >> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation >> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse >> roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be >> dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. >> >> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS >> Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use >> that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is >> on >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >> >> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online >> and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to >> surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: >> >> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is >> the idea, and not the institutions >> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder >> principle >> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals >> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us >> scope the idea itself. >> >> Best >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon >> > wrote: >> >> Dear people, >> >> For the level of information I have (which is basically: >> Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet >> after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on >> Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), >> I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter >> congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. >> >> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on >> our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, >> during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from >> all this besides participating in the Summit??) >> >> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and >> discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian >> colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what >> is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will >> bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the >> principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >> >> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious >> position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. >> All the best >> >> joana >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein >> > wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] On Behalf >> Of Carlos A. Afonso >> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >> To: McTim >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; michael gurstein; >> Lee W McKnight; Rafik >> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >,; NCSG List >> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >> Chehade: Brazil will >> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Dear compa McT, >> >> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change >> your logical view... >> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all >> sectors who feel >> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its >> concrete proposals to >> finally move on. >> >> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- >> Rousseff's statement >> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles >> most of civil society >> defends (which she has repeated several times in her >> radio program and her >> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary >> framework of >> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting >> of IP addressers >> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi >> just dropped by the >> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to >> sell that proposal? :) >> >> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a >> proposal for yet >> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting >> space called IGF, >> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major >> achievement that >> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort >> jointly with BR. >> >> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong >> sectors within the >> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the >> purview of the ITU, >> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative >> model of governance >> we defend, and who are basically associated with the >> transnational telecom >> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to >> defend those >> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the >> meeting with thar >> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those >> internal disputes >> as well. >> >> [] fraterno >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our >> invitation that we >> > hold next year a Global Summit" >> > >> > Seem fairly clear to me. >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >> > wrote: >> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times >> more... :) >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein >> > >> wrote: >> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be >> wrong but this >> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi >> for getting this >> >>>> going and putting that into play. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of >> Brazil is going >> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to >> discuss names and >> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing >> the quite >> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the >> IGF, the now >> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the >> status quo which it >> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules >> and regs. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again >> several times that >> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the >> Montevideoans) that are >> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the >> Summit comes from >> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 11 01:41:09 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 01:41:09 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9989A54B-E3E4-410D-90B7-1121C01A6FA9@acm.org> Hi, While I thought a letter was worth discussing and might be a good idea as we have to make sure they know we care about full participatory inclusion, I really did not see how a letter could or should materialize until after the BB meeting. I encourage us to keep talking about it and to perhaps come a plan on how to proceed in Bali. Thanking them for their apparent leadership direction without gushing over it, they are politicians after all, is just the sort of encouragement you need to include when you write to leaders (especially those who beleive in the noblesse of leadership) when you are trying to get them to do something. avri On 11 Oct 2013, at 00:12, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Having had a look at the draft letter after a good night's sleep, I agree with Deborah and others, and will stick to my initial position that we should take some time to develop our own agenda before dashing this off. As someone else noted in this very long thread, doing so can also be of value not only for this event but in a more general sense. We needn't necessarily agree on answers, but it could be powerful if we could at least collectively put forward (some of) the questions to be asked - about CS involvement as much as about the role of governments. Could this, for example, be an appropriate place to start pushing a debate on the need to update the "respective roles and responsibilities" clause in the Tunis Agenda, or at least the way we read it? Even if we decide not to ask for it here, that is one item that could be added to a CS agenda for the reform of Internet governance. > > Sending letters that are too generic might also lead to them getting ignored, which is obviously something we want to avoid. Ideally, the news that a CS letter is on the way should fill the recipient with a pleasant mix of excitement and apprehension ;) > > My two paise, > Anja > > On Oct 11, 2013 8:45 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > On 11/10/13 00:00, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> I cannot agree more. >> >> Not only do I share Rafik's skepticism, I also think we should not fall into the trap of thinking of ICANN (and the ICANN DNS gold rush) as being at the core of the policy-making processes that matter to how people access, use, and develop the internet. >> >> That ICANN is now setting broader agendas, along with governments, reflects entirely what is problematic with how power and influence plays out in IG and I find it alarming. >> >> Definitely agree with Anja and others who say that CS should get involved in this debate. A critical perspective is needed now more than ever. > > My first thought too was that this was opportunism on ICANN's part (and, heck, probably on Dilma's too), but so what? When two top leaders have done more in one day to open the doors to Internet governance reform than the IGF MAG has done in eight years, hurrah for opportunism - let's make the most of it. > > But I also agree that the proposed letter is a bit light on, and that we should develop more of an agenda for the event before sending such a letter. This can, as Deborah said, be done online and in person at the Best Bits meeting, and should be an output of the meeting which we open for endorsements and IGC consensus call then. > > -- > 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 01:45:14 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:45:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing here? can you please clarify? Rafik 2013/10/11 parminder > > Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of essense, > some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try to > present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very much > hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would > open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a > practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok that we > can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, with all > kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential game > changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to be > setting in)... > > parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: > > Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is *a tide* in the *affairs > of men*. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... > > Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... > President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a > regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced > the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, > and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards > well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its > interest... > > Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real > interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take > our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which > hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that > counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no > good... > > Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains we > can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks or > advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face > to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the > appropriate response. > > ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to > the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for > democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, > the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd > Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be > changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately > seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like > that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has > happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing > hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support > this proposal. > > In supporting it, we would only be saying - > (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in global > governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, > (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden manner, > (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of the > key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN > or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of status > quo,and that > (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all action, > as the dialogue shapes and takes place... > > Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed > meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, > saying this is not at all what we bargained for) > > So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, or > they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still > wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. > Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral > from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may > not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would > already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society > support to have this kind of impact.... > > Parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. We > can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea of > the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible > processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will > emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali > and before then try to find out a little more. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Deborah Brown > *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM > *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Dear all, > > I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned > that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us > travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more > sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the > in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS > agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the > initiative at this point. > > The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) > does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have > expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" > of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of > course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours > ;) > > I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on > communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more > effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and > head of ICANN. > > To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is hot" > and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, I > would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm > looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion > around this important development. > > Best regards, > Deborah > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> >> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil society, >> it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive that the >> current IGF >> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way >> understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". >> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are >> working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues >> intend to play key roles in the summit. >> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in >> the summit >> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation >> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles >> that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue >> during the BB meeting in Bali. >> >> >> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection >> processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to >> sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >> >> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and >> I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I >> do not, here are my ideas: >> >> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the >> idea, and not the institutions >> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder >> principle >> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals >> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope the >> idea itself. >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and >>> ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - >>> coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the >>> presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a >>> letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. >>> >>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda >>> online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings >>> in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the >>> Summit??) >>> >>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this >>> with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society >>> or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the >>> government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the >>> principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >>> >>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I >>> really need more inputs to see the big picture. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. >>>> Afonso >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>> To: McTim >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; >>>> Rafik >>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will >>>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>> >>>> Dear compa McT, >>>> >>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >>>> view... >>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel >>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals >>>> to >>>> finally move on. >>>> >>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >>>> statement >>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil >>>> society >>>> defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and >>>> her >>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of >>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP >>>> addressers >>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped >>>> by the >>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that >>>> proposal? :) >>>> >>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet >>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called >>>> IGF, >>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement >>>> that >>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. >>>> >>>> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within >>>> the >>>> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the >>>> ITU, >>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of >>>> governance >>>> we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational >>>> telecom >>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar >>>> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >>>> disputes >>>> as well. >>>> >>>> [] fraterno >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we >>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>> > >>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >>>> wrote: >>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>>> >> >>>> >> --c.a. >>>> >> >>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein < >>>> gurstein at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 02:07:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:37:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> It is here http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus document of demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and strong letter, of a few sentences, that Brazilian President or some top guy would actually read, and not get confusing messages. I am not saying we should not say whatever we definitively want to say - but be clear and short, that is all. parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing here? > can you please clarify? > > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/11 parminder > > > > Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of > essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over > today and try to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the > day.... We do very much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by > consensus, but it doesnt happen we would open it to organisations > and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a practice I > normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok that we > can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, > with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - > potential game changer - initiative from a developing country, a > paralysis seems to be setting in)... > > parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a tide/ in >> the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to >> fortune"... >> >> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize >> it.... President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, >> somewhat a regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her >> hands, even announced the like month etc.. That is what gave it >> such a sudden high prominence, and people are celebrating >> Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards well, Brazil have >> now got an edge.... which it can use to further its interest... >> >> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests >> - real interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and >> we have to take our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be >> eternally paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are >> real differences of views, well, that counts.... But a permanent >> simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no good... >> >> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what >> gains we can make... And others must also contribute what they >> think are risks or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure >> yet, tells talk more, do face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I >> think, just my own view, is not the appropriate response. >> >> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy >> up to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal >> for democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon >> present - BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG >> issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a >> real dialogue to see what needs to be changed about the global >> governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately seizes the >> initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like >> that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that >> has happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is >> nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit >> to if they support this proposal. >> >> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change >> in global governance of the Internet should take place with some >> urgency, >> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a >> hidden manner, >> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from >> one of the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real >> change' - and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main >> symbol and defender of status quo,and that >> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of >> all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... >> >> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the >> proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly >> withdraw our support, saying this is not at all what we >> bargained for) >> >> So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a >> statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, >> when people are still wondering what kind of initiative it really >> is, and with what implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind >> of make this thing somewhat trilateral from its current >> bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may not >> succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative >> would already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for >> civil society support to have this kind of impact.... >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information >>> emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we >>> have a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, >>> likely attendees, and possible processes for the conference. >>> It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the next week >>> or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before >>> then try to find out a little more. >>> Ian Peter >>> *From:* Deborah Brown >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: >>> Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>> Dear all, >>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit >>> concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter >>> before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I >>> wonder if it might make more sense to continue this discussion >>> online and take advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for >>> those of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others >>> have pointed out, we know so little about the initiative at this >>> point. >>> The draft text (available here: >>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture >>> the cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I >>> also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" >>> of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet >>> complete. Of course the text of the letter could change >>> dramatically in just a few hours ;) >>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow >>> on communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it >>> might be more effective to streamline our communication to the >>> Brazilian president and head of ICANN. >>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the >>> iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors >>> I mentioned above, I would support taking some extra time if we >>> need it. In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' >>> ideas and continuing the discussion around this important >>> development. >>> Best regards, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the >>> civil society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" >>> more open and inclusive that the current IGF >>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in >>> any way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and >>> ICANN's push". >>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that >>> are working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG >>> and Internet issues intend to play key roles in the >>> summit. >>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to >>> pursue in the summit >>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder >>> participation >>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse >>> roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will >>> be dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. >>> >>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS >>> Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can >>> use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of >>> the WS is on >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>> >>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back >>> online and I'm happy to contribute language if any text >>> begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: >>> >>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, >>> which is the idea, and not the institutions >>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the >>> Multistakeholder principle >>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement >>> proposals >>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us >>> scope the idea itself. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> For the level of information I have (which is basically: >>> Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on >>> Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the >>> meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential >>> elections period), I don't feel comfortable about >>> writing a letter congratulating for something I dont >>> really know what it is. >>> >>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start >>> working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be >>> much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what >>> do we want from all this besides participating in the >>> Summit??) >>> >>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and >>> discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian >>> colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see >>> what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the >>> government will bring to our table very soon (if it >>> truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at >>> the UNGA). >>> >>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious >>> position, but I really need more inputs to see the big >>> picture. >>> All the best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein >>> > wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> ] On >>> Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso >>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>> To: McTim >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ; michael >>> gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik >>> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >,; NCSG List >>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >>> Chehade: Brazil will >>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>> >>> Dear compa McT, >>> >>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not >>> change your logical view... >>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all >>> sectors who feel >>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its >>> concrete proposals to >>> finally move on. >>> >>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation >>> -- Rousseff's statement >>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic >>> principles most of civil society >>> defends (which she has repeated several times in her >>> radio program and her >>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a >>> planetary framework of >>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a >>> meeting of IP addressers >>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think >>> Fadi just dropped by the >>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered >>> to sell that proposal? :) >>> >>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is >>> not a proposal for yet >>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN >>> chatting space called IGF, >>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a >>> major achievement that >>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort >>> jointly with BR. >>> >>> All the more so because, as you know, there are >>> strong sectors within the >>> government who would love to bring the root-zone to >>> the purview of the ITU, >>> who hate Icann, who do not like the >>> pluriparticipative model of governance >>> we defend, and who are basically associated with the >>> transnational telecom >>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, >>> to defend those >>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the >>> meeting with thar >>> proposal was a major political milestone for her in >>> those internal disputes >>> as well. >>> >>> [] fraterno >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted >>> our invitation that we >>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>> > >>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >>> > wrote: >>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times >>> more... :) >>> >> >>> >> --c.a. >>> >> >>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael >>> gurstein >> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may >>> be wrong but this >>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to >>> Fadi for getting this >>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. >>> of Brazil is going >>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year >>> to discuss names and >>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is >>> by-passing the quite >>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of >>> the IGF, the now >>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the >>> status quo which it >>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) >>> rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again >>> several times that >>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the >>> Montevideoans) that are >>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of >>> the Summit comes from >>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> rightscon.org >>> >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 02:13:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:13:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <018f01cec648$fce5d9f0$f6b18dd0$@gmail.com> I agree… Somethng clear and crips that supports Dilma now, as the forces of opposition begin to get organized and that establishes us as a collaborator with her/them in this important enterprise. We can go into detail later if/when we have standing… But if we wait until later our likelihood of having signiificant standing is substantially diminished. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:39 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok that we can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential game changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to be setting in)... parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its interest... Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no good... Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains we can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the appropriate response. ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support this proposal. In supporting it, we would only be saying - (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden manner, (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of status quo,and that (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, saying this is not at all what we bargained for) So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society support to have this kind of impact.... Parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. Ian Peter From: Deborah Brown Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM To: Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear all, I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the initiative at this point. The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and head of ICANN. To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion around this important development. Best regards, Deborah On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Dear all 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive that the current IGF 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in the summit 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the idea, and not the institutions 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder principle 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope the idea itself. Best Nnenna On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: Dear people, For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the Summit??) In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. All the best joana On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zanecebo at sowetoilab.co.za Fri Oct 11 03:41:04 2013 From: zanecebo at sowetoilab.co.za (zanecebo at sowetoilab.co.za) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:41:04 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Change of E-mail Address Request Message-ID: Good morning. Please remove my e-mail address zanecebo at sowetoilab.co.za from your list and replace it with zanecebom at gmail.com urgently please as this is clogging my work e-mail address. Regards Zanecebo Mchunu From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 11 04:44:54 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:44:54 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5257B936.5010802@ciroap.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <00FDAF2B-B862-4D00-9CBA-42ACEC68F3AA@gmail.com> <20131011100108.3e2a4fe9@quill> <5257B936.5010802@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5257BA86.2030807@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Agree with Jeremy. I suggest we draft in the Best Bits community and then share with Governance. I am sure many IGC members will be in support, and it might even be possible for Norbert and Sala to negotiated an IGC endorsement once we have a finalised text. But if we start the drafting there it will just be too complex. Drafting is best done in small teams who then gather input in a relatively structured manner. Anriette On 11/10/2013 10:39, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/10/13 16:01, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Hence I propose that IGC goes ahead and drafts and sends very soon a first letter simply from IGC. This could IMO be a relatively simple letter, expressing appreciation and interest and requesting that international civil society not be left out from full and effective participation in the planned event and its preparatory process. > > On the other hand, it is even harder for the IGC to agree on a letter than it is for Best Bits, since the IGC requires consensus. And there are enough IGC members saying "no" to the letter already that I wonder whether consensus will be possible... > > -- > > *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. > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ 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/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSV7qGAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewnIUIAIfvB73fFW2m2QyTDfmcYiNV RWcG9phfZPQjDkQoplP6zTS71g0IERoHqP3A7aMUamiU14u9E47FDRNghKsHEIv3 N8Z1V0110xh//hHY1KvUfYprML3Z2YmjoVFyM7mMlbpVlMOuW29ZEQwiT+VByxkv /sBj353bd1XRbJqTBQ04FRS4PwTuB5fZ3KOKqP1fZfWlDopaICcPPKYC7vDQoOcw X7QD1t7Yqgim3zzrfeyBRdBb7UG+P+MUwXMEDyKpbTq9d/ZR1daf+napGxahEXsd uZ5BDjMc+bPA0jytRa7lJl+BE4iOYZ05gAKBV0fe/JrJr43c3TS4Ig+H5lkG7fQ= =wFL0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Fri Oct 11 05:15:10 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:15:10 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5257C19E.6010609@cdt.org> I agree. On 11/10/2013 04:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/10/13 00:00, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> I cannot agree more. >> >> Not only do I share Rafik's skepticism, I also think we should not >> fall into the trap of thinking of ICANN (and the ICANN DNS gold rush) >> as being at the core of the policy-making processes that matter to >> how people access, use, and develop the internet. >> >> That ICANN is now setting broader agendas, along with governments, >> reflects entirely what is problematic with how power and influence >> plays out in IG and I find it alarming. >> >> Definitely agree with Anja and others who say that CS should get >> involved in this debate. A critical perspective is needed now more >> than ever. > > My first thought too was that this was opportunism on ICANN's part > (and, heck, probably on Dilma's too), but so what? When two top > leaders have done more in one day to open the doors to Internet > governance reform than the IGF MAG has done in eight years, hurrah for > opportunism - let's make the most of it. > > But I also agree that the proposed letter is a bit light on, and that > we should develop more of an agenda for the event before sending such > a letter. This can, as Deborah said, be done online and in person at > the Best Bits meeting, and should be an output of the meeting which we > open for endorsements and IGC consensus call then. > > -- > > *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. > -- 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: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 11 06:03:15 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 18:03:15 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> <75AAD2E4-BD73-4417-BE22-3723CE2A68B0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5257CCE3.3000306@ciroap.org> On 10/10/13 23:32, Evan Greer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: >> Obvious challenges: the fact that civil society organising structures >> have crumbled since then, the lack of funding, the short time scale >> to organise... >> >> Could FFTF/IDL join us in Bali, in person or remotely? It is really >> important for the rest of us to connect with your community, I feel. > I don't think that we can send someone to Bali but we'd be happy to > join a session remotely or talk ideas / strategy anytime. Is there a > central location where we can get info or can someone keep us in the loop? Firstly sorry for the typos in my original reply which was sent by phone. Since you're on the main Best Bits mailing list that's already the main central location for info, though feel free also to contact the interim steering committee at any time (steering at lists.bestbits.net), and during 19-20 October we will be streaming our Bali meeting at http://bestbits.net/streaming/ (though I still have to work out a way to authenticate viewers and/or to close the stream during sensitive discussions). Though some feedback has been given already, we should continue to discuss (here and in Bali) the possibility of a civil society side event as more details of the Brazil event come out. I am a firm believer in the idea that the stakeholder groups can and should hold their own meetings and that this should be seen as complementary to the official multi-stakeholder proceedings, rather than competing with or subverting them. So I wouldn't like to rule out at the least a Best Bits side event, or perhaps (which is closer to what you had in mind) a broader one that could include end-user communities. Let's see how things come together. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 3 12:33:16 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:33:16 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017601cec056$4cf7ed00$e6e7c700$@gmail.com> I don't see any contradiction between these objectives but rather they are manifestations of the same underlying set of impulses which is to establish a degree of independence (economic, security, etc.) from the current unipolar geo-political system. M From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:07 AM To: Adam Peake Cc: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; irp; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC Some interesting thoughts from Rick Falkvinge on the BRICS cable here: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2013/09/logical-for-brics-countri es-to-build-their-own-internet-infrastructure-circumventing-u-s-surveillance / It's fascinating to see, however, how the cable is now being projected as a tool to circumvent US surveillance, while when it was first announced, the emphasis was on improved global coverage (especially better access for African countries) and better trade and development relations for BRICS countries. It may of course well be able to achieve all of these things, but it's interesting to see how those initially justifications now don't seem to be receiving too much (media) attention anymore. Best, Anja On 3 October 2013 10:48, Adam Peake wrote: Hi Marilia, Thanks for this report. Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad law.) Adam On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Sorry for any duplication of this message. > > To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-g lobal-digital-policy > > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ > > Best wishes > > Marília > > -- > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 11 07:30:48 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:30:48 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5257C19E.6010609@cdt.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> <5257C19E.6010609@cdt.org> Message-ID: <5257E168.4010403@apc.org> Agree with your points Jeremy, but I don't think we should assume that the IGF, and discussions that happen in and around the IGF, have not influenced this trajectory or other trajectories of change that have taken place in IG since Tunis. I am pretty sure that it has and I hope that people will do substantive research to look into this. We need to reflect on what we really want from the IGF, and then evaluate it accordingly. Not saying you, or the rest of us have not done that, but it is worth doing it again, particularly now that we have worked with its strengths and weaknesses for the last 7 years. Willie Currie who used to be APC's policy manager during and after Tunis (and was part of the final negotiations) used to talk about the IGF as a soft power mechanism. He had great belief in soft power based on his extensive political experience - in exiled political organisations during Apartheid, in the trade union movement, in government, in social movements and in civil society. Soft power mechanisms influence people, directly and /or indirectly. They do not directly influence negotiated outcomes from institutionalised processes, but people do influence those processes and outcomes. The IGF is one of the more transparent and accessible soft power mechanisms I have encountered. It is by no means the only soft power platform civil society activists should use, nor should we restrict our efforts to soft power processes, but I think we would be very short sighted to abandon it at this point. Personality / individual driven political processes that are not fully backed by their constituencies and institutions often implode, or are redirected - even if some of those personalities and leaders have the best of intentions. In the case of Dilma and Brazil their position has been consistent (although as Carlos pointed out, not all voices in the Brazilian government agree with this approach), but this is the case with ICANN? We need to watch this process, and try to influence it. Often when these kind of alliances between oppositional forces take place civil society's influence is at its weakest because the brokering/mediation role we often play is not needed, and as the stakes are quite high, the players want only those who have power and resources at the table. But this is a great opportunity. Rather than see this summit as making the IGF irrelevant, I think we should link it to the IGF process, and to UN processes (the speech was made at the GA after all) and more broadly to institutionalising inclusive policy processes rather than having them take place through the whims or good graces of powerful individuals. Anriette On 11/10/2013 11:15, matthew shears wrote: > I agree. > > On 11/10/2013 04:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 11/10/13 00:00, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> I cannot agree more. >>> >>> Not only do I share Rafik's skepticism, I also think we should not >>> fall into the trap of thinking of ICANN (and the ICANN DNS gold >>> rush) as being at the core of the policy-making processes that >>> matter to how people access, use, and develop the internet. >>> >>> That ICANN is now setting broader agendas, along with governments, >>> reflects entirely what is problematic with how power and influence >>> plays out in IG and I find it alarming. >>> >>> Definitely agree with Anja and others who say that CS should get >>> involved in this debate. A critical perspective is needed now more >>> than ever. >> >> My first thought too was that this was opportunism on ICANN's part >> (and, heck, probably on Dilma's too), but so what? When two top >> leaders have done more in one day to open the doors to Internet >> governance reform than the IGF MAG has done in eight years, hurrah >> for opportunism - let's make the most of it. >> >> But I also agree that the proposed letter is a bit light on, and that >> we should develop more of an agenda for the event before sending such >> a letter. This can, as Deborah said, be done online and in person at >> the Best Bits meeting, and should be an output of the meeting which >> we open for endorsements and IGC consensus call then. >> >> -- >> >> *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. >> > > -- > > 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 11 07:43:37 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:43:37 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5257E168.4010403@apc.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> <5257C19E.6010609@cdt.org> <5257E168.4010403@apc.org> Message-ID: <5BDCC54E-AC76-44D8-A6D2-2695386EF47B@glocom.ac.jp> considering Anriette's last paragraph, that the summit needn't make the IGF irrelevant, but be linked to it. Is it correct that Brazil has offered to host the IGF in 2015? Perhaps 18 months between a global summit in April 2014 and IGF in October 2015 (+/- a month) will be an opportunity to work on principles, on the practical implementation of those principle, gain agreement on changes, so that these outcomes can be delivered for discussion at the IGF and then agreement in whatever external process affected by them. Of course we don't really know what it is has been proposed, before letting our imaginations get too fanciful, might be best to hear what's said by the Brazil govt and ICANN in Bali. I think we're sure to hear a lot more. Adam On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:30 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > , From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Oct 11 07:50:37 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:50:37 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5BDCC54E-AC76-44D8-A6D2-2695386EF47B@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> <5257C19E.6010609@cdt.org> <5257E168.4010403@apc.org> <5BDCC54E-AC76-44D8-A6D2-2695386EF47B@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1F455071-17C4-416C-B443-3B26E6B02A34@uzh.ch> Hi On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > considering Anriette's last paragraph, that the summit needn't make the IGF irrelevant, but be linked to it. Is it correct that Brazil has offered to host the IGF in 2015? Yes, although yesterday I mistakenly typed next year. Wrong region. > Perhaps 18 months between a global summit in April 2014 and IGF in October 2015 (+/- a month) will be an opportunity to work on principles Perhaps starting with the Bali FS on principles? > , on the practical implementation of those principle, gain agreement on changes, so that these outcomes can be delivered for discussion at the IGF and then agreement in whatever external process affected by them. Right. Work to keep IGF in the mix. Bill > > Of course we don't really know what it is has been proposed, before letting our imaginations get too fanciful, might be best to hear what's said by the Brazil govt and ICANN in Bali. I think we're sure to hear a lot more. > > Adam > > > > On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:30 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> , > ********************************************************** 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: From valeriab at apc.org Fri Oct 11 08:50:16 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:50:16 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <54979D2A-B450-44DF-842C-D238A7535677@apc.org> + 1 Valeria On 10/10/2013, at 23:12, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Having had a look at the draft letter after a good night's sleep, I > agree with Deborah and others, and will stick to my initial position > that we should take some time to develop our own agenda before > dashing this off. As someone else noted in this very long thread, > doing so can also be of value not only for this event but in a more > general sense. We needn't necessarily agree on answers, but it could > be powerful if we could at least collectively put forward (some of) > the questions to be asked - about CS involvement as much as about > the role of governments. Could this, for example, be an appropriate > place to start pushing a debate on the need to update the > "respective roles and responsibilities" clause in the Tunis Agenda, > or at least the way we read it? Even if we decide not to ask for it > here, that is one item that could be added to a CS agenda for the > reform of Internet governance. > > Sending letters that are too generic might also lead to them getting > ignored, which is obviously something we want to avoid. Ideally, the > news that a CS letter is on the way should fill the recipient with a > pleasant mix of excitement and apprehension ;) > > My two paise, > Anja > > On Oct 11, 2013 8:45 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > On 11/10/13 00:00, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> I cannot agree more. >> >> Not only do I share Rafik's skepticism, I also think we should not >> fall into the trap of thinking of ICANN (and the ICANN DNS gold >> rush) as being at the core of the policy-making processes that >> matter to how people access, use, and develop the internet. >> >> That ICANN is now setting broader agendas, along with governments, >> reflects entirely what is problematic with how power and influence >> plays out in IG and I find it alarming. >> >> Definitely agree with Anja and others who say that CS should get >> involved in this debate. A critical perspective is needed now more >> than ever. > > My first thought too was that this was opportunism on ICANN's part > (and, heck, probably on Dilma's too), but so what? When two top > leaders have done more in one day to open the doors to Internet > governance reform than the IGF MAG has done in eight years, hurrah > for opportunism - let's make the most of it. > > But I also agree that the proposed letter is a bit light on, and > that we should develop more of an agenda for the event before > sending such a letter. This can, as Deborah said, be done online > and in person at the Best Bits meeting, and should be an output of > the meeting which we open for endorsements and IGC consensus call > then. > > -- > 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: From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 11 08:59:09 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:59:09 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] CGI.br resolution in support of the letter of international orgs to Dilma Rousseff In-Reply-To: <525706CB.7080300@cafonso.ca> References: <525706CB.7080300@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5257F61D.20206@apc.org> Nice letter c.a. I like how you frame your support in paragraph c). And thanks for mentioning Best Bits :) Anriette On 10/10/2013 21:58, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi people, sorry again for possible duplicate messages. The letter > below is the formal support resolution from CGI.br regarding the > letter from international organizations delivered to Pres.Dilma Rousseff. > > It is in Portuguese but Google Translate does a real nice job of > rendering it into English. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ========================================= > > São Paulo, 10 de outubro de 2013 > > *CGI.br afirma apoio à carta de organizações internacionais sobre o > pronunciamento de Dilma na ONU* > > O Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil (CGI.br), através da resolução > CGI.br/RES/2013/034, declara apoio à carta subscrita por dezenas de > organizações nacionais e internacionais sobre o pronunciamento da > Presidente Dilma Rousseff na 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU. A carta foi > entregue pelo conselheiro Carlos Afonso à Presidente da República no > evento de lançamento do Portal Brasil, canal de comunicação do governo > federal, juntamente com a manifestação do CGI.br > . > > Por meio desta resolução, o CGI.br: > > a) Reafirma apoio à Presidente Dilma Rousseff, especialmente em sua > explícita defesa dos Princípios para a Governança e Uso da Internet no > Brasil, que foram publicados na Resolução CGI.br/RES/2009/003; > > b) Declara que está comprometido em ações na governança da Internet no > Brasil, bem identificadas na carta das organizações nacionais e > internacionais; > > c) Alinha-se aos conceitos contidos na proposta brasileira apresentada > na ONU pela Presidente Dilma Rousseff para estabelecer mecanismos de > "Governança democrática, multilateral e aberta, exercida com > transparência, estimulando a criação coletiva e a participação da > sociedade, dos governos e do setor privado" e que adotem a proteção > dos direitos básicos dos cidadãos, como expresso na Declaração > Universal de Direitos Humanos da ONU, entre eles o direito à privacidade. > > "A ideia de fazer uma carta de apoio à fala da Dilma surgiu em duas > listas internacionais de e-mail em que se debate governança da > Internet: IGC (Internet Governance Caucus) e BestBits", afirmou Joana > Varon, pesquisadora do Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS) da > Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV). Joana é uma das conselheiras do do > BestBits, rede colaborativa que discute soluções abertas e de > interesse social na governança online. > > "O decálogo do CGI.br é um elemento crucial de uma governança global > mais ampla defendida pela Presidente, que seja democrática e voltada a > uma ordem internacional mais justa", disse Diego Canabarro, assistente > de pesquisa e ensino no Centro de Estudos Internacionais sobre Governo > da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (CEGOV/UFRGS), que também > participou da redação conjunta da carta de apoio. > > A íntegra da resolução CGI.br/RES/2013/034 pode ser encontrada em > http://cgi.br/regulamentacao/resolucoes.htm. > > *Sobre o Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do Ponto BR -- NIC.br* > O Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do Ponto BR --- NIC.br > (http://www.nic.br/) é uma entidade civil, sem fins lucrativos, que > implementa as decisões e projetos do Comitê Gestor da Internet no > Brasil. São atividades permanentes do NIC.br coordenar o registro de > nomes de domínio --- Registro.br (http://www.registro.br/), estudar, > responder e tratar incidentes de segurança no Brasil - CERT.br > (http://www.cert.br/), estudar e pesquisar tecnologias de redes e > operações --- CEPTRO.br (http://www.ceptro.br/), produzir indicadores > sobre as tecnologias da informação e da comunicação --- CETIC.br > (http://www.cetic.br/) e abrigar o escritório do W3C no Brasil > (http://www.w3c.br/). > > *Sobre o Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil - CGI.br* > O Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil, responsável por estabelecer > diretrizes estratégicas relacionadas ao uso e desenvolvimento da > Internet no Brasil, coordena e integra todas as iniciativas de > serviços Internet no País, promovendo a qualidade técnica, a inovação > e a disseminação dos serviços ofertados. Com base nos princípios de > multilateralidade, transparência e democracia, o CGI.br representa um > modelo de governança multissetorial da Internet com efetiva > participação de todos os setores da sociedade nas suas decisões. Uma > de suas formulações são os 10 Princípios para a Governança e Uso da > Internet (http://www.cgi.br/principios). Mais informações em > http://www.cgi.br/. -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 11 11:17:10 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:17:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52581676.3010908@cafonso.ca> I agree, except that I do not think any proposal coming from the Montevideo group would be arrogant. We are in this plural process and we ought to accept manifestations (individual or collective) of everyone -- and that group is highly qualified to provide propositions of course. The fact that I disagreed with a relatively minor part of its content does not at all in my view makes it less relevant. Let us try and, as you say, take advantage of this opportunity to do our best to converge. The IGF "chatting space" would be a great opportunity for groups, "tribes", communities etc to fine tune ideas and do concrete advances. fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/10/2013 05:20 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > > Carlos: > > I agree with you that the President Rousseff position is of course not based on the Montevideo statement. It should be very very arrogant to think that. > Dilma's speech in UN and the Montevideo Statement are independent but related events that fortunately seems to be converging, and the meeting between Fadi and Dilma is an expression of that. > > > Raúl > > > > > El 10/10/2013, a las 15:11, Carlos A. Afonso escribió: > >> Dear compa McT, >> >> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >> view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who >> feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete >> proposals to finally move on. >> >> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >> statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of >> civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio >> program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary >> framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting >> of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think >> Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and >> entered to sell that proposal? :) >> >> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet >> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called >> IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major >> achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort >> jointly with BR. >> >> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within >> the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of >> the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of >> governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the >> transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar >> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >> disputes as well. >> >> [] fraterno >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>> At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>> "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we >>> hold next year a Global Summit" >>> >>> Seem fairly clear to me. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just >>>>>> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting >>>>>> that into play… >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite >>>>>> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my >>>>>> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>>>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >>>>>> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) rules >>>>>> and regs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it >>>>> is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>>>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit 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 Fri Oct 11 11:19:33 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:19:33 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <7BA50BC9-49A3-4FFA-80B9-E864E15080F3@arin.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <6B129299-0907-4D37-A614-9DCF73722D89@acm.org> <5256F28A.7090305@cafonso.ca> <7BA50BC9-49A3-4FFA-80B9-E864E15080F3@arin.net> Message-ID: <52581705.2090205@cafonso.ca> Good to know, I guess I misinterpreted yous msg, thx John. --c.a. On 10/10/2013 06:13 PM, John Curran wrote: > At 20:31 10/10/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Avri, so did (or it seems to have done) the ARIN fellow. This was signed >> as a statement of the "leaders" of whatever, so it saves them in a >> certain way from having their ears pulled when they return to their home >> bases, so to speak. > > Just to be clear - > > ARIN fully supports the Montevideo Statement; it was signed > by me, but it was also approved in advance by the ARIN Board > (which happened quite quickly as the positions therein were > already positions of public record of ARIN and discussed with > our members.) > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 11:30:19 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:30:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, sorry I was not asking about the draft letter but more what I understood from your proposal is that we move quickly and spend time shorter than usual even if there are concerns . I want to be sure if I got you message correctly. I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am still not convinced and I want to highlight that any action we take, will have impact soon or later and can backfire. I don't think that you would disagree with more strategical approach. Best, Rafik 2013/10/11 parminder > It is here > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 > > Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus document of > demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and strong letter, of a few > sentences, that Brazilian President or some top guy would actually read, > and not get confusing messages. I am not saying we should not say whatever > we definitively want to say - but be clear and short, that is all. > > parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing here? can > you please clarify? > > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/11 parminder > >> >> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of >> essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try >> to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very >> much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we >> would open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this >> is a practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok >> that we can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, >> with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential >> game changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to >> be setting in)... >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is *a tide* in the *affairs >> of men*. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... >> >> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... >> President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a >> regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced >> the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, >> and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards >> well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its >> interest... >> >> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real >> interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take >> our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which >> hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that >> counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no >> good... >> >> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains we >> can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks or >> advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face >> to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the >> appropriate response. >> >> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to >> the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for >> democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, >> the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd >> Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be >> changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately >> seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like >> that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has >> happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing >> hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support >> this proposal. >> >> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in >> global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, >> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden >> manner, >> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of the >> key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN >> or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of status >> quo,and that >> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all >> action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... >> >> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed >> meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, >> saying this is not at all what we bargained for) >> >> So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, >> or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still >> wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. >> Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral >> from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may >> not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would >> already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society >> support to have this kind of impact.... >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. >> We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea >> of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible >> processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will >> emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali >> and before then try to find out a little more. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> *From:* Deborah Brown >> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Dear all, >> >> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned >> that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us >> travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more >> sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the >> in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS >> agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the >> initiative at this point. >> >> The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) >> does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have >> expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" >> of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of >> course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours >> ;) >> >> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on >> communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more >> effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and >> head of ICANN. >> >> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is >> hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, >> I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm >> looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion >> around this important development. >> >> Best regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> >>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil >>> society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive >>> that the current IGF >>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way >>> understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". >>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are >>> working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues >>> intend to play key roles in the summit. >>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in >>> the summit >>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation >>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles >>> that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue >>> during the BB meeting in Bali. >>> >>> >>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection >>> processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to >>> sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>> >>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and >>> I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I >>> do not, here are my ideas: >>> >>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the >>> idea, and not the institutions >>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder >>> principle >>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals >>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope >>> the idea itself. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and >>>> ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - >>>> coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the >>>> presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a >>>> letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. >>>> >>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our >>>> agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several >>>> meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in >>>> the Summit??) >>>> >>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this >>>> with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society >>>> or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the >>>> government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the >>>> principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >>>> >>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I >>>> really need more inputs to see the big picture. >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. >>>>> Afonso >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>>> To: McTim >>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; >>>>> Rafik >>>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >>>>> will >>>>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>>> >>>>> Dear compa McT, >>>>> >>>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >>>>> view... >>>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel >>>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete >>>>> proposals to >>>>> finally move on. >>>>> >>>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >>>>> statement >>>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil >>>>> society >>>>> defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and >>>>> her >>>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of >>>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP >>>>> addressers >>>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped >>>>> by the >>>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that >>>>> proposal? :) >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for >>>>> yet >>>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called >>>>> IGF, >>>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement >>>>> that >>>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. >>>>> >>>>> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within >>>>> the >>>>> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the >>>>> ITU, >>>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of >>>>> governance >>>>> we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational >>>>> telecom >>>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >>>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar >>>>> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >>>>> disputes >>>>> as well. >>>>> >>>>> [] fraterno >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that >>>>> we >>>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>>> > >>>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> --c.a. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein < >>>>> gurstein at gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes >>>>> from >>>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 12:22:52 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:52:52 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52582596.305@itforchange.net> References: <52582596.305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <525825DC.5010803@itforchange.net> Hi Rafik On Friday 11 October 2013 09:00 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > sorry I was not asking about the draft letter but more what I > understood from your proposal is that we move quickly and spend time > shorter than usual even if there are concerns . Firstly, we can take the usual time for seeking consensus. Just not postpone to another time... Secondly, I have not clearly heard, or any rate understood, the concerns. Lets be clear what we are doing at present - Just welcoming an initiative that by all means looks like a serious outcome oriented or at least outcome seeking one, and saying that we want to be there right away driving it along with others.... What is wrong with it. The potential benefit is clear - we try to get a bit tri - lateral about this initiative.... Any other time will be too late.... And as I said I dont see the downside.... > I want to be sure if I got you message correctly. > I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am still not > convinced and I want to highlight that any action we take, will have > impact soon or later and can backfire. I don't think that you would > disagree with more strategical approach. You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any political act carries risk. Regards, parminder > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2013/10/11 parminder > > > It is here > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 > > Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus > document of demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and > strong letter, of a few sentences, that Brazilian President or > some top guy would actually read, and not get confusing messages. > I am not saying we should not say whatever we definitively want to > say - but be clear and short, that is all. > > parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing >> here? can you please clarify? >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2013/10/11 parminder > > >> >> >> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is >> strategically of essense, some of us would keep working on a >> posible text over today and try to present something to IGC >> and BB by the end of the day.... We do very much hope IGC and >> BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would >> open it to organisations and people who want to sign it >> (sorry, this is a practice I normally do not like so much, >> but I dont think it is ok that we can produce a statement to >> critique a UN process is just no time, with all kind of >> ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential >> game changer - initiative from a developing country, a >> paralysis seems to be setting in)... >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >>> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a tide/ >>> in the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the flood, leads on >>> to fortune"... >>> >>> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize >>> it.... President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps >>> been, somewhat a regular kind of offer. She seized it with >>> both her hands, even announced the like month etc.. That is >>> what gave it such a sudden high prominence, and people are >>> celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards >>> well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to >>> further its interest... >>> >>> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some >>> interests - real interests of real people, who are most >>> marginalised, and we have to take our own responsibility >>> seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which hurts >>> these interests. If there are real differences of views, >>> well, that counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch >>> attitude would do us no good... >>> >>> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and >>> what gains we can make... And others must also contribute >>> what they think are risks or advantages.... merely saying we >>> are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face to face and >>> all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the >>> appropriate response. >>> >>> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to >>> cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the >>> new proposal for democratising global IG that Rousseff said >>> Brazil will soon present - BTW, the day of the annual >>> discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, >>> but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what >>> needs to be changed about the global governance of the >>> Internet. Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and >>> even declares a possible timeline, just like that, >>> off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that >>> has happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. >>> There is nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly >>> become complicit to if they support this proposal. >>> >>> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >>> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to >>> change in global governance of the Internet should take >>> place with some urgency, >>> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a >>> hidden manner, >>> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes >>> from one of the key developing nations - the main votaries >>> of a 'real change' - and ICANN or the technical community - >>> seen as the main symbol and defender of status quo,and that >>> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle >>> of all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... >>> >>> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about >>> the proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as >>> publicly withdraw our support, saying this is not at all >>> what we bargained for) >>> >>> So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a >>> statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the >>> statement, when people are still wondering what kind of >>> initiative it really is, and with what implications. Throw >>> in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat >>> trilateral from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - >>> ICANN tech community) We may not succeed, but we must try. >>> .... In a few weeks, the initiative would already be too >>> solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society >>> support to have this kind of impact.... >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more >>>> information emerges. We can draft a letter which is more >>>> meaningful when we have a better idea of the scope, >>>> objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and >>>> possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely >>>> more information will emerge in the next week or so, >>>> therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then >>>> try to find out a little more. >>>> Ian Peter >>>> *From:* Deborah Brown >>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >>>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >>>> Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet >>>> governance in 2014 >>>> Dear all, >>>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a >>>> bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize >>>> a letter before many of us travel and are otherwise >>>> overstretched. I wonder if it might make more sense to >>>> continue this discussion online and take advantage of the >>>> in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to >>>> develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we >>>> know so little about the initiative at this point. >>>> The draft text (available here: >>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to >>>> capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have >>>> expressed. I also have concerns about providing our >>>> "strongest endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when >>>> that process is not yet complete. Of course the text of the >>>> letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) >>>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a >>>> follow on communication with more concrete proposals. I >>>> wonder if it might be more effective to streamline our >>>> communication to the Brazilian president and head of ICANN. >>>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while >>>> the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given >>>> the factors I mentioned above, I would support taking some >>>> extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm looking forward >>>> to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion >>>> around this important development. >>>> Best regards, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the >>>> civil society, it is support for an IDEA that >>>> "appears" more open and inclusive that the current IGF >>>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be >>>> in any way understood as "Civil Society lauds >>>> Dilma and ICANN's push". >>>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society >>>> that are working on, concerned about and/or >>>> interested in IG and Internet issues intend to >>>> play key roles in the summit. >>>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan >>>> to pursue in the summit >>>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder >>>> participation >>>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the >>>> diverse roles that CS can play and that some time >>>> in Bali will be dedicated to the issue during the >>>> BB meeting in Bali. >>>> >>>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing >>>> the MS Selection processes, and I do hope, personally >>>> that we can use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. >>>> A reminder of the WS is on >>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>>> >>>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be >>>> back online and I'm happy to contribute language if any >>>> text begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my >>>> ideas: >>>> >>>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, >>>> which is the idea, and not the institutions >>>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >>>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the >>>> Multistakeholder principle >>>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >>>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete >>>> engagement proposals >>>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to >>>> help us scope the idea itself. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> For the level of information I have (which is >>>> basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a >>>> Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or >>>> right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and >>>> before the presidential elections period), I don't >>>> feel comfortable about writing a letter >>>> congratulating for something I dont really know >>>> what it is. >>>> >>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start >>>> working on our agenda online and, with a potential >>>> to be much richer, during our several meetings in >>>> Bali. (what do we want from all this besides >>>> participating in the Summit??) >>>> >>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to >>>> understand and discuss this with the Brazilian >>>> government and Brazilian colleagues from civil >>>> society or other sectors. And see what is the final >>>> draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring >>>> to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all >>>> the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >>>> >>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over >>>> cautious position, but I really need more inputs to >>>> see the big picture. >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>> To: McTim >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> ; michael >>>> gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik >>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; >>>> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >,; NCSG List >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] >>>> Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will >>>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>> >>>> Dear compa McT, >>>> >>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not >>>> change your logical view... >>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in >>>> all sectors who feel >>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil >>>> and its concrete proposals to >>>> finally move on. >>>> >>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the >>>> motivation -- Rousseff's statement >>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic >>>> principles most of civil society >>>> defends (which she has repeated several times >>>> in her radio program and her >>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a >>>> planetary framework of >>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from >>>> a meeting of IP addressers >>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you >>>> think Fadi just dropped by the >>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and >>>> entered to sell that proposal? :) >>>> >>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this >>>> is not a proposal for yet >>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN >>>> chatting space called IGF, >>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It >>>> is a major achievement that >>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this >>>> effort jointly with BR. >>>> >>>> All the more so because, as you know, there are >>>> strong sectors within the >>>> government who would love to bring the >>>> root-zone to the purview of the ITU, >>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the >>>> pluriparticipative model of governance >>>> we defend, and who are basically associated >>>> with the transnational telecom >>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall >>>> here, to defend those >>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging >>>> from the meeting with thar >>>> proposal was a major political milestone for >>>> her in those internal disputes >>>> as well. >>>> >>>> [] fraterno >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has >>>> accepted our invitation that we >>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>> > >>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. >>>> Afonso > >>>> wrote: >>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few >>>> times more... :) >>>> >> >>>> >> --c.a. >>>> >> >>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael >>>> gurstein >>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. >>>> I may be wrong but this >>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off >>>> to Fadi for getting this >>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the >>>> Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next >>>> year to discuss names and >>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is >>>> by-passing the quite >>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >>>> the status quo which it >>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. >>>> (non) rules and regs. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video >>>> again several times that >>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the >>>> Montevideoans) that are >>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea >>>> of the Summit comes from >>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Senior Policy Analyst >>>> Access | accessnow.org >>>> rightscon.org >>>> >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Fri Oct 11 12:33:03 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:33:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Snowdenandthefuture In-Reply-To: <525825DC.5010803@itforchange.net> References: <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <525825DC.5010803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5258283F.60806@softwarefreedom.org> Dear All, My apologies for cross posting but all of you with such varied interests would definitely enjoy this series of talks either remotely or in person. What has Edward Snowden done to change the course of human history? How does the evolution of surveillance since World War II threaten democracy? What does it mean that information can be both so powerful and so easily spread? In a network embracing all of humanity, how does democracy survive our desire for security? Please join the Software Freedom Law Center and Columbia Law School for a series of talks by Eben Moglen on "Snowden and the Future" that will address the aforementioned questions. This four part series will run from 4:30 to 5:30 on the evenings of October 9th, 30th, November 13th, and December 4th. Please join us in room 101 of Columbia Law School's Jerome Greene hall or online at http://snowdenandthefuture.info Eben Moglen Founder of the Software Freedom Law Center. Columbia law professor and historian. 2003 recipient of the EFF pioneer award for his role in legalizing software encryption and defending free software. 1986-87 clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall of the US Supreme Court. """ -- 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 3 21:24:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:24:07 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads In-Reply-To: <52411E34.1080904@itforchange.net> References: <52411E34.1080904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <03c301cec0a0$72eb0bb0$58c12310$@gmail.com> I guess a question to ask is what is the overall "governance"/policy framework which would allow a teenager in Burkina Faso to have content removed about themselves? In some ways that should be the/an objective of our deliberations… M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568 It is about putting restrictions on some kinds of ads on Internet services, applications etc that aimed at minors. It also allows minors to remove content about themselves. Whatever agreement or disagreement people may have with this particular law, one important issue here is that California can make such law, but not states in other countries, not even national governments. I mean it is so so difficult for them to enforce it, that it may not be worth attempting it. At other places, big companies may simply blackmail them by threats of withdrawal as Google did with governemnt of Taipei a few years back. (which they wont do with Gov of California).... This is how policy space for non US gov entities is shrinking fast, and what it means is that political and democratic space of our world is shrinking... A key global IG issue if there ever was one. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 13:09:50 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:09:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <1F455071-17C4-416C-B443-3B26E6B02A34@uzh.ch> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> <5256CF14.8020607@apc.org> <52576D32.7000901@ciroap.org> <5257C19E.6010609@cdt.org> <5257E168.4010403@apc.org> <5BDCC54E-AC76-44D8-A6D2-2695386EF47B@glocom.ac.jp> <1F455071-17C4-416C-B443-3B26E6B02A34@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <040b01cec6a4$bb672b80$32358280$@gmail.com> Would now/Bali be a good time to discuss what possible roles/contributions an IGF might play in a Brazil led IG initiative..perhaps by reviewing/identifying precisely what contributions the IGF has made overall to IG to date. Something I would be very interested to hear the various IGF insiders/old timers like Bill/Adam/Anriette and Avri make a brief presentation on at BB perhaps. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 4:51 AM To: Adam Peake Cc: anriette at apc.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Hi On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Adam Peake wrote: considering Anriette's last paragraph, that the summit needn't make the IGF irrelevant, but be linked to it. Is it correct that Brazil has offered to host the IGF in 2015? Yes, although yesterday I mistakenly typed next year. Wrong region. Perhaps 18 months between a global summit in April 2014 and IGF in October 2015 (+/- a month) will be an opportunity to work on principles Perhaps starting with the Bali FS on principles? , on the practical implementation of those principle, gain agreement on changes, so that these outcomes can be delivered for discussion at the IGF and then agreement in whatever external process affected by them. Right. Work to keep IGF in the mix. Bill Of course we don't really know what it is has been proposed, before letting our imaginations get too fanciful, might be best to hear what's said by the Brazil govt and ICANN in Bali. I think we're sure to hear a lot more. Adam On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:30 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: , ********************************************************** 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: From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 11 13:54:15 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:54:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> Agree with Anja too.. I think we need to excercise caution. I do think that once we know more about this event we should intervene strongly. At this point I think a general outcome statement from the Best Bits meeting (with support from the IGC if it can reach consensus) could praise this initiative, but make come cautionary points about it. We should also use the opportunity of talking with Brazilian colleagues and government people in Bali to get more insight into how they envision this event. I would not write another letter before the IGF. Anriette On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: > Anja +1 > > We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of > not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration > geopolitics. > > I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as > has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far > better resourced actors that ultimately will result in a very > different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where > rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short >> succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the >> Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of >> excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a >> third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will >> simply receive it with fatigue. >> >> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The >> point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter >> in ten days time will have more force. >> >> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are >> other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government >> that we are interested in working with them on this and support this >> idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly >> and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. >> >> My two paise, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: >> >> Parminder > > wrote: >> >> > You are just making a general statement that caution and >> foresight is >> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >> > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any >> > political act carries risk. >> >> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >> certainty of losing that opportunity. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 14:02:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:02:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: <04ab01cec6ac$06995630$13cc0290$@gmail.com> Robert, From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Oct 11 16:10:16 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:10:16 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Global Policy Initiatives on Access and Digital Inclusion Message-ID: <52585B28.7000602@cis-india.org> Dear all, I'm forwarding an e-mail thread between Michael Gurstein and me (with Michael's permission) on the topic of policy actions at the global level on access and digital inclusion. I'd like to see what ideas folks on this list have. I'm pleased that the WGEC questionnaire included question # 15: *15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? * as also *16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries?* **12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society?* * Where are the public's responses to these available? I think it would be very useful to compile all the answers under each question, as that will make it easy to grep. Cheers, Pranesh ====== *Pranesh Prakash ** **16/12/12** * Dear Michael, You have written that we should start focussing on "digital inclusion/Internet access and use, distribution of the economic benefits of the Internet, local languages and cultures and so on". I didn't get a chance to ask you this when we met: Would you have ideas on what concrete measures can be pursued? Regards, Pranesh * **Michael Gurstein ** **16/12/12* Hi Pranesh, I'ld be delighted but I need a bit more background/context for your question... Are you asking in the context of CS consultation/advocacy, government policy, professional programming? M *Pranesh Prakash ** **1 January** * In terms of governmental policy and in terms of what concrete measures you believe civil society should be advocating for. As in, would it take the form of a digital solidarity fund? And/or governmental policy mandate on local language support on devices? And/or... *Michael Gurstein * 1 January Okay... In terms of governmental policy it really depends on the national context... and that to a considerable degree is evolving as new technologies emerge and as the type and cost of connectivity is also evolving... In India I think the policy has to be towards some sort of right of universal access and use... Not necessarily individual access but some sort of access at least at the village level--which could be through mobiles or fixed line connections. The issue with mobiles may be cost either of the device or of the connection particularly in very poor areas--but by making it a "right" it means that say some form of access is made available at the Panchyat level. But I also think you need to include "use" which means that the access is available in local languages and the various apps that might be of most value are available in a form that is usable at the village level (including through training someone at the village level to facilitate the use of those applications as for example e-gov applications. At the CS level globally I think (now) that the direction should be towards a global Internet in the public interest... Some sort of global framework (say like the Law of the Sea) which recognizes that the Internet is not simply a collection of wires ("pipes") but is rather a global framework of communications that should be developed in the interests of all. Precisely what that looks like or how it could be developed I have no idea but having an Internet at the basic infrastructure of global communications which is essentially owne/controlled by certain national or corporate interests should be of concern to us all. I'm not sure that that is as "concrete" as you are asking for, but I think the more concrete measures flow rather directly from these higher order principles/policies. Your thoughts? M *Pranesh Prakash ** **1 January* In India's NTP'11, para IV.1.2 states: > > "To recognise telecom, including broadband connectivity as a basic necessity like education and health and work towards 'Right to Broadband'". Further, there's a universal service obligation fund too. The document continues: > > 1.3. To lay special emphasis on providing reliable and affordable broadband access to rural and remote areas by appropriate combination of optical fibre, wireless, VSAT and other technologies. Optical fibre network will be initially laid up to the village panchayat level by funding from the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF). Extension of optical fibre connectivity from village panchayats to be taken up progressively to all villages and habitations. Access to this Optical Fibre Network will be open, non-discriminatory and technology neutral. > > 1.4. Provide appropriate incentives for rural rollout. I'm actually looking for less at the level of principles and objectives (e.g., universal service) and more at the level of policy-based action items (e.g., a universal service obligation fund that aims to create an incentive-based mechanism to achieve universal service instead of just leaving it to market forces). Essentially, I'm not looking for the *what should we be aiming for* / *where should we be heading*, but *how do we get that which we are aiming for* + *what concrete steps can we take to get where we are heading*. So I'm looking less for "local languages should be promoted", and more for "these are the concrete steps the government can take to promote local languages". I don't see many, if any at all, useful policy-based action items coming out from civil society. ~ Pranesh *Michael Gurstein ** **2 January* Hi Pranesh, I'm not sure that you are asking the right question... The specific activities re: connectivity etc. will be quite specific to individual locations/regions etc. and will depend on local resources, capabilities and so on. This local knowledge/program identification is almost certainly best left to local NGO's to develop, what can be done at a policy level is to enable the local NGO's to do their work -- with appropriate funding, back up , support, policy enablement and so on. (BTW, that isn't "civil societies" usual role--they are generally acting as advocates while NGO's do the implementation... If you are looking to ideas on how to proceed locally there are lists of case studies/best practices in various places (I think a big one is being compiled by UN ECOSOC for WSIS, but unless those are filtered through local experience my feeling is that they are rather useless. Best, M *Pranesh Prakash ** **2 January* Then you wouldn't say there is anything we can advocate for at the global level to tackle access issues other than at the level of normative but unenforceable rights or principles? *Michael Gurstein ** **2 January* Hi Pranesh, I work a lot with indigenous peoples in various parts of the world and have tried to get them involved in global level initiatives... They have basically no interest as there is nothing at the global level that will have an immediate impact on their local circumstances. What does have an impact, but is rather more indirect are what you call "unenforceable rights or principles"... things like global norms around broadband deployment, recognition of indigenous rights, inclusion of indigenous peoples into broad initiatives like the Broadband Task Force that sort of thing... Recognition of them in those forums means that they then have more leverage in their national contexts and can make direct programme/policy recommendations/advocacy initiatives with some sort of global backing--they can call their national governments to account for commitments made, even " unenforceable rights or principles" (the only kind of commitments that national governments are likely to make at the global level... The programs/policies that are linked to these are dramatically different from country to country--from Indigenous people in Canada linking their national treaties to global agreements, to tribal peoples in India or Bangladesh looking to the UNDHR as their leverage point for gaining access to services, to countries in Latin America taking leadership in global environmental initiatives on behalf of Pachen Mama... But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, give me some examples of the kind of initiatives you think might be worthwhile presenting at the global level? M *Pranesh Prakash ** **Tuesday* A mail that was stuck in my 'Drafts' folder since January 3! I think it might be useful to throw open this question to the Best Bits list. Would you mind if I forward this thread there? ==== Dear Michael, If *I* knew what we should be doing, I wouldn't be quizzing you like this. :) It's not like there haven't been global policy efforts to improve access. There's the Digital Solidarity Fund created as part of WSIS. From what I've been given to understand, it was mired in corruption, and that ultimately led to its failure. Universal Service Obligation Funds are one of those best practices things that various countries have adopted, but which — according to people who know much more about this than I do — are having precious little effect in most countries. (There might of course be counter-examples.) I think pushing for shared spectrum through the ITU is one part of the solution. If in the future we manage to get Internet to people, wireless (whether over phone or WiFi or WiMax or anything else) has got to be the way to go, since wired connections can't possibly provide sufficient coverage. This means that spectrum allocation rules, etc., are among the more important policy changes we could be targetting. But apart from that, my current thinking is that most access-enabling policies have to be passed at the national level. There doesn't seem to be too much (apart from the examples I've cited above) that can be done at the global level save for what-might-be-perceived-as platitudinous statements of our desire for universal access. Regards, 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 -------------------+ Postgraduate Associate & 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 11 16:27:58 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:27:58 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Global Policy Initiatives on Access and Digital Inclusion In-Reply-To: <52585B28.7000602@cis-india.org> References: <52585B28.7000602@cis-india.org> Message-ID: > Where are the public's responses to these available? http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 specifically: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/Contribution/Q15%20Responses.pdf though some may yet to be added. avri On 11 Oct 2013, at 16:10, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear all, > I'm forwarding an e-mail thread between Michael Gurstein and me (with Michael's permission) on the topic of policy actions at the global level on access and digital inclusion. I'd like to see what ideas folks on this list have. > > I'm pleased that the WGEC questionnaire included question # 15: > > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? > > as also > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? > > Where are the public's responses to these available? I think it would be very useful to compile all the answers under each question, as that will make it easy to grep. > > Cheers, > Pranesh > > ====== > > > Pranesh Prakash > 16/12/12 > > Dear Michael, > You have written that we should start focussing on "digital > inclusion/Internet access and use, distribution of the economic benefits > of the Internet, local languages and cultures and so on". > > I didn't get a chance to ask you this when we met: Would you have ideas > on what concrete measures can be pursued? > > Regards, > Pranesh > > > Michael Gurstein > 16/12/12 > > Hi Pranesh, > > I'ld be delighted but I need a bit more background/context for your > question... Are you asking in the context of CS consultation/advocacy, > government policy, professional programming? > > M > > Pranesh Prakash > 1 January > > > In terms of governmental policy and in terms of what concrete measures > you believe civil society should be advocating for. > > As in, would it take the form of a digital solidarity fund? And/or > governmental policy mandate on local language support on devices? And/or... > > *Michael Gurstein * > 1 January > > > Okay... > > In terms of governmental policy it really depends on the national context... > and that to a considerable degree is evolving as new technologies emerge and > as the type and cost of connectivity is also evolving... > > In India I think the policy has to be towards some sort of right of > universal access and use... Not necessarily individual access but some sort > of access at least at the village level--which could be through mobiles or > fixed line connections. The issue with mobiles may be cost either of the > device or of the connection particularly in very poor areas--but by making > it a "right" it means that say some form of access is made available at the > Panchyat level. But I also think you need to include "use" which means that > the access is available in local languages and the various apps that might > be of most value are available in a form that is usable at the village level > (including through training someone at the village level to facilitate the > use of those applications as for example e-gov applications. > > At the CS level globally I think (now) that the direction should be towards > a global Internet in the public interest... Some sort of global framework > (say like the Law of the Sea) which recognizes that the Internet is not > simply a collection of wires ("pipes") but is rather a global framework of > communications that should be developed in the interests of all. Precisely > what that looks like or how it could be developed I have no idea but having > an Internet at the basic infrastructure of global communications which is > essentially owne/controlled by certain national or corporate interests > should be of concern to us all. > > I'm not sure that that is as "concrete" as you are asking for, but I think > the more concrete measures flow rather directly from these higher order > principles/policies. > > Your thoughts? > > M > > > Pranesh Prakash > 1 January > > > In India's NTP'11, para IV.1.2 states: > > > > > "To recognise telecom, including broadband connectivity as a > basic necessity like education and health and work towards 'Right > to Broadband'". > > > > Further, there's a universal service obligation fund too. The document > continues: > > > > > > 1.3. To lay special emphasis on providing reliable and > affordable broadband access to rural and remote areas by > appropriate combination of optical fibre, wireless, VSAT and other > technologies. Optical fibre network will be initially laid up to > the village panchayat level by funding from the Universal Service > Obligation Fund (USOF). Extension of optical fibre connectivity > from village panchayats to be taken up progressively to all > villages and habitations. Access to this Optical Fibre Network > will be open, non-discriminatory and technology neutral. > > > > > > > > 1.4. Provide appropriate incentives for rural rollout. > > > > I'm actually looking for less at the level of principles and objectives > (e.g., universal service) and more at the level of policy-based action > items (e.g., a universal service obligation fund that aims to create an > incentive-based mechanism to achieve universal service instead of just > leaving it to market forces). > > Essentially, I'm not looking for the *what should we be aiming for* / > *where should we be heading*, but *how do we get that which we are > aiming for* + *what concrete steps can we take to get where we are > heading*. So I'm looking less for "local languages should be promoted", > and more for "these are the concrete steps the government can take to > promote local languages". > > I don't see many, if any at all, useful policy-based action items coming > out from civil society. > > ~ Pranesh > > > Michael Gurstein > 2 January > > > Hi Pranesh, > > I'm not sure that you are asking the right question... The specific > activities re: connectivity etc. will be quite specific to individual > locations/regions etc. and will depend on local resources, capabilities and > so on. This local knowledge/program identification is almost certainly best > left to local NGO's to develop, what can be done at a policy level is to > enable the local NGO's to do their work -- with appropriate funding, back up > , support, policy enablement and so on. (BTW, that isn't "civil societies" > usual role--they are generally acting as advocates while NGO's do the > implementation... > > If you are looking to ideas on how to proceed locally there are lists of > case studies/best practices in various places (I think a big one is being > compiled by UN ECOSOC for WSIS, but unless those are filtered through local > experience my feeling is that they are rather useless. > > Best, > > M > > > Pranesh Prakash > 2 January > > > Then you wouldn't say there is anything we can advocate for at the global level to tackle access issues other than at the level of normative but unenforceable rights or principles? > > > Michael Gurstein > 2 January > > > Hi Pranesh, > > I work a lot with indigenous peoples in various parts of the world and have tried to get them involved in global level initiatives... They have basically no interest as there is nothing at the global level that will have an immediate impact on their local circumstances. > > What does have an impact, but is rather more indirect are what you call "unenforceable rights or principles"... things like global norms around broadband deployment, recognition of indigenous rights, inclusion of indigenous peoples into broad initiatives like the Broadband Task Force that sort of thing... Recognition of them in those forums means that they then have more leverage in their national contexts and can make direct programme/policy recommendations/advocacy initiatives with some sort of global backing--they can call their national governments to account for commitments made, even " unenforceable rights or principles" (the only kind of commitments that national governments are likely to make at the global level... > > The programs/policies that are linked to these are dramatically different from country to country--from Indigenous people in Canada linking their national treaties to global agreements, to tribal peoples in India or Bangladesh looking to the UNDHR as their leverage point for gaining access to services, to countries in Latin America taking leadership in global environmental initiatives on behalf of Pachen Mama... > > But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, give me some examples of the kind of initiatives you think might be worthwhile presenting at the global level? > > M > > > Pranesh Prakash > Tuesday > > A mail that was stuck in my 'Drafts' folder since January 3! I think it > might be useful to throw open this question to the Best Bits list. > Would you mind if I forward this thread there? > > ==== > Dear Michael, > If *I* knew what we should be doing, I wouldn't be quizzing you like > this. :) > > It's not like there haven't been global policy efforts to improve > access. There's the Digital Solidarity Fund created as part of WSIS. > From what I've been given to understand, it was mired in corruption, and > that ultimately led to its failure. Universal Service Obligation Funds > are one of those best practices things that various countries have > adopted, but which — according to people who know much more about this > than I do — are having precious little effect in most countries. (There > might of course be counter-examples.) > > I think pushing for shared spectrum through the ITU is one part of the > solution. If in the future we manage to get Internet to people, > wireless (whether over phone or WiFi or WiMax or anything else) has got > to be the way to go, since wired connections can't possibly provide > sufficient coverage. This means that spectrum allocation rules, etc., > are among the more important policy changes we could be targetting. > > But apart from that, my current thinking is that most access-enabling > policies have to be passed at the national level. There doesn't seem to > be too much (apart from the examples I've cited above) that can be done > at the global level save for what-might-be-perceived-as platitudinous > statements of our desire for universal access. > > Regards, > 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 > -------------------+ > 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: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 11 17:00:02 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:00:02 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Global Policy Initiatives on Access and Digital Inclusion In-Reply-To: References: <52585B28.7000602@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <525866D2.40006@apc.org> APC's input is still not there...I have written to them about it but no change. Pranesh, here it is for your information. Anriette On 11/10/2013 22:27, Avri Doria wrote: >> Where are the public's responses to these available? > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 > > specifically: > > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/Contribution/Q15%20Responses.pdf > > though some may yet to be added. > > avri > > On 11 Oct 2013, at 16:10, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > >> Dear all, >> I'm forwarding an e-mail thread between Michael Gurstein and me (with Michael's permission) on the topic of policy actions at the global level on access and digital inclusion. I'd like to see what ideas folks on this list have. >> >> I'm pleased that the WGEC questionnaire included question # 15: >> >> 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? >> >> as also >> 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? >> 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? >> >> Where are the public's responses to these available? I think it would be very useful to compile all the answers under each question, as that will make it easy to grep. >> >> Cheers, >> Pranesh >> >> ====== >> >> >> Pranesh Prakash >> 16/12/12 >> >> Dear Michael, >> You have written that we should start focussing on "digital >> inclusion/Internet access and use, distribution of the economic benefits >> of the Internet, local languages and cultures and so on". >> >> I didn't get a chance to ask you this when we met: Would you have ideas >> on what concrete measures can be pursued? >> >> Regards, >> Pranesh >> >> >> Michael Gurstein >> 16/12/12 >> >> Hi Pranesh, >> >> I'ld be delighted but I need a bit more background/context for your >> question... Are you asking in the context of CS consultation/advocacy, >> government policy, professional programming? >> >> M >> >> Pranesh Prakash >> 1 January >> >> >> In terms of governmental policy and in terms of what concrete measures >> you believe civil society should be advocating for. >> >> As in, would it take the form of a digital solidarity fund? And/or >> governmental policy mandate on local language support on devices? And/or... >> >> *Michael Gurstein * >> 1 January >> >> >> Okay... >> >> In terms of governmental policy it really depends on the national context... >> and that to a considerable degree is evolving as new technologies emerge and >> as the type and cost of connectivity is also evolving... >> >> In India I think the policy has to be towards some sort of right of >> universal access and use... Not necessarily individual access but some sort >> of access at least at the village level--which could be through mobiles or >> fixed line connections. The issue with mobiles may be cost either of the >> device or of the connection particularly in very poor areas--but by making >> it a "right" it means that say some form of access is made available at the >> Panchyat level. But I also think you need to include "use" which means that >> the access is available in local languages and the various apps that might >> be of most value are available in a form that is usable at the village level >> (including through training someone at the village level to facilitate the >> use of those applications as for example e-gov applications. >> >> At the CS level globally I think (now) that the direction should be towards >> a global Internet in the public interest... Some sort of global framework >> (say like the Law of the Sea) which recognizes that the Internet is not >> simply a collection of wires ("pipes") but is rather a global framework of >> communications that should be developed in the interests of all. Precisely >> what that looks like or how it could be developed I have no idea but having >> an Internet at the basic infrastructure of global communications which is >> essentially owne/controlled by certain national or corporate interests >> should be of concern to us all. >> >> I'm not sure that that is as "concrete" as you are asking for, but I think >> the more concrete measures flow rather directly from these higher order >> principles/policies. >> >> Your thoughts? >> >> M >> >> >> Pranesh Prakash >> 1 January >> >> >> In India's NTP'11, para IV.1.2 states: >> > "To recognise telecom, including broadband connectivity as a >> basic necessity like education and health and work towards 'Right >> to Broadband'". >> >> >> >> Further, there's a universal service obligation fund too. The document >> continues: >> >> > 1.3. To lay special emphasis on providing reliable and >> affordable broadband access to rural and remote areas by >> appropriate combination of optical fibre, wireless, VSAT and other >> technologies. Optical fibre network will be initially laid up to >> the village panchayat level by funding from the Universal Service >> Obligation Fund (USOF). Extension of optical fibre connectivity >> from village panchayats to be taken up progressively to all >> villages and habitations. Access to this Optical Fibre Network >> will be open, non-discriminatory and technology neutral. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 1.4. Provide appropriate incentives for rural rollout. >> >> >> >> I'm actually looking for less at the level of principles and objectives >> (e.g., universal service) and more at the level of policy-based action >> items (e.g., a universal service obligation fund that aims to create an >> incentive-based mechanism to achieve universal service instead of just >> leaving it to market forces). >> >> Essentially, I'm not looking for the *what should we be aiming for* / >> *where should we be heading*, but *how do we get that which we are >> aiming for* + *what concrete steps can we take to get where we are >> heading*. So I'm looking less for "local languages should be promoted", >> and more for "these are the concrete steps the government can take to >> promote local languages". >> >> I don't see many, if any at all, useful policy-based action items coming >> out from civil society. >> >> ~ Pranesh >> >> >> Michael Gurstein >> 2 January >> >> >> Hi Pranesh, >> >> I'm not sure that you are asking the right question... The specific >> activities re: connectivity etc. will be quite specific to individual >> locations/regions etc. and will depend on local resources, capabilities and >> so on. This local knowledge/program identification is almost certainly best >> left to local NGO's to develop, what can be done at a policy level is to >> enable the local NGO's to do their work -- with appropriate funding, back up >> , support, policy enablement and so on. (BTW, that isn't "civil societies" >> usual role--they are generally acting as advocates while NGO's do the >> implementation... >> >> If you are looking to ideas on how to proceed locally there are lists of >> case studies/best practices in various places (I think a big one is being >> compiled by UN ECOSOC for WSIS, but unless those are filtered through local >> experience my feeling is that they are rather useless. >> >> Best, >> >> M >> >> >> Pranesh Prakash >> 2 January >> >> >> Then you wouldn't say there is anything we can advocate for at the global level to tackle access issues other than at the level of normative but unenforceable rights or principles? >> >> >> Michael Gurstein >> 2 January >> >> >> Hi Pranesh, >> >> I work a lot with indigenous peoples in various parts of the world and have tried to get them involved in global level initiatives... They have basically no interest as there is nothing at the global level that will have an immediate impact on their local circumstances. >> >> What does have an impact, but is rather more indirect are what you call "unenforceable rights or principles"... things like global norms around broadband deployment, recognition of indigenous rights, inclusion of indigenous peoples into broad initiatives like the Broadband Task Force that sort of thing... Recognition of them in those forums means that they then have more leverage in their national contexts and can make direct programme/policy recommendations/advocacy initiatives with some sort of global backing--they can call their national governments to account for commitments made, even " unenforceable rights or principles" (the only kind of commitments that national governments are likely to make at the global level... >> >> The programs/policies that are linked to these are dramatically different from country to country--from Indigenous people in Canada linking their national treaties to global agreements, to tribal peoples in India or Bangladesh looking to the UNDHR as their leverage point for gaining access to services, to countries in Latin America taking leadership in global environmental initiatives on behalf of Pachen Mama... >> >> But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, give me some examples of the kind of initiatives you think might be worthwhile presenting at the global level? >> >> M >> >> >> Pranesh Prakash >> Tuesday >> >> A mail that was stuck in my 'Drafts' folder since January 3! I think it >> might be useful to throw open this question to the Best Bits list. >> Would you mind if I forward this thread there? >> >> ==== >> Dear Michael, >> If *I* knew what we should be doing, I wouldn't be quizzing you like >> this. :) >> >> It's not like there haven't been global policy efforts to improve >> access. There's the Digital Solidarity Fund created as part of WSIS. >> From what I've been given to understand, it was mired in corruption, and >> that ultimately led to its failure. Universal Service Obligation Funds >> are one of those best practices things that various countries have >> adopted, but which — according to people who know much more about this >> than I do — are having precious little effect in most countries. (There >> might of course be counter-examples.) >> >> I think pushing for shared spectrum through the ITU is one part of the >> solution. If in the future we manage to get Internet to people, >> wireless (whether over phone or WiFi or WiMax or anything else) has got >> to be the way to go, since wired connections can't possibly provide >> sufficient coverage. This means that spectrum allocation rules, etc., >> are among the more important policy changes we could be targetting. >> >> But apart from that, my current thinking is that most access-enabling >> policies have to be passed at the national level. There doesn't seem to >> be too much (apart from the examples I've cited above) that can be done >> at the global level save for what-might-be-perceived-as platitudinous >> statements of our desire for universal access. >> >> Regards, >> 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 >> -------------------+ >> Postgraduate Associate & Access to Knowledge Fellow >> Information Society Project, Yale Law School >> T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_FINAL_10092013.doc Type: application/msword Size: 104448 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_FINAL_10092013.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 60717 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Oct 11 19:32:49 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:32:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Digital Society [was Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014] In-Reply-To: <000c01cec602$c79d4490$56d7cdb0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <000c01cec602$c79d4490$56d7cdb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 12 00:16:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:46:12 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Global Policy Initiatives on Access and Digital Inclusion In-Reply-To: <52585B28.7000602@cis-india.org> References: <52585B28.7000602@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <5258CD0C.4060201@itforchange.net> Responses are already complied question wise at http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 But it seems there are many responses missing and they are now putting them in... On Saturday 12 October 2013 01:40 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear all, > I'm forwarding an e-mail thread between Michael Gurstein and me (with > Michael's permission) on the topic of policy actions at the global > level on access and digital inclusion. I'd like to see what ideas > folks on this list have. > > I'm pleased that the WGEC questionnaire included question # 15: > > *15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues > that are of special relevance to developing countries? > * > as also > *16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the > affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries > and least developed countries?* > **12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of > all marginalised people in the global information society?* > * > Where are the public's responses to these available? I think it would > be very useful to compile all the answers under each question, as that > will make it easy to grep. > > Cheers, > Pranesh > > ====== > > > *Pranesh Prakash ** > **16/12/12** > * > Dear Michael, > You have written that we should start focussing on "digital > inclusion/Internet access and use, distribution of the economic benefits > of the Internet, local languages and cultures and so on". > > I didn't get a chance to ask you this when we met: Would you have ideas > on what concrete measures can be pursued? > > Regards, > Pranesh > > * > **Michael Gurstein ** > **16/12/12* > > Hi Pranesh, > > I'ld be delighted but I need a bit more background/context for your > question... Are you asking in the context of CS consultation/advocacy, > government policy, professional programming? > > M > > *Pranesh Prakash ** > **1 January** > * > > In terms of governmental policy and in terms of what concrete measures > you believe civil society should be advocating for. > > As in, would it take the form of a digital solidarity fund? And/or > governmental policy mandate on local language support on devices? > And/or... > > *Michael Gurstein * > 1 January > > > Okay... > > In terms of governmental policy it really depends on the national > context... > and that to a considerable degree is evolving as new technologies > emerge and > as the type and cost of connectivity is also evolving... > > In India I think the policy has to be towards some sort of right of > universal access and use... Not necessarily individual access but some > sort > of access at least at the village level--which could be through mobiles or > fixed line connections. The issue with mobiles may be cost either of the > device or of the connection particularly in very poor areas--but by making > it a "right" it means that say some form of access is made available > at the > Panchyat level. But I also think you need to include "use" which > means that > the access is available in local languages and the various apps that might > be of most value are available in a form that is usable at the village > level > (including through training someone at the village level to facilitate the > use of those applications as for example e-gov applications. > > At the CS level globally I think (now) that the direction should be > towards > a global Internet in the public interest... Some sort of global framework > (say like the Law of the Sea) which recognizes that the Internet is not > simply a collection of wires ("pipes") but is rather a global framework of > communications that should be developed in the interests of all. Precisely > what that looks like or how it could be developed I have no idea but > having > an Internet at the basic infrastructure of global communications which is > essentially owne/controlled by certain national or corporate interests > should be of concern to us all. > > I'm not sure that that is as "concrete" as you are asking for, but I think > the more concrete measures flow rather directly from these higher order > principles/policies. > > Your thoughts? > > M > > > *Pranesh Prakash ** > **1 January* > > > In India's NTP'11, para IV.1.2 states: > > > > "To recognise telecom, including broadband connectivity as a basic > necessity like education and health and work towards 'Right to > Broadband'". > > > Further, there's a universal service obligation fund too. The document > continues: > > > > > 1.3. To lay special emphasis on providing reliable and affordable > broadband access to rural and remote areas by appropriate combination > of optical fibre, wireless, VSAT and other technologies. Optical fibre > network will be initially laid up to the village panchayat level by > funding from the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF). Extension > of optical fibre connectivity from village panchayats to be taken up > progressively to all villages and habitations. Access to this Optical > Fibre Network will be open, non-discriminatory and technology neutral. > > > > 1.4. Provide appropriate incentives for rural rollout. > > > I'm actually looking for less at the level of principles and objectives > (e.g., universal service) and more at the level of policy-based action > items (e.g., a universal service obligation fund that aims to create an > incentive-based mechanism to achieve universal service instead of just > leaving it to market forces). > > Essentially, I'm not looking for the *what should we be aiming for* / > *where should we be heading*, but *how do we get that which we are > aiming for* + *what concrete steps can we take to get where we are > heading*. So I'm looking less for "local languages should be promoted", > and more for "these are the concrete steps the government can take to > promote local languages". > > I don't see many, if any at all, useful policy-based action items coming > out from civil society. > > ~ Pranesh > > > *Michael Gurstein ** > **2 January* > > > Hi Pranesh, > > I'm not sure that you are asking the right question... The specific > activities re: connectivity etc. will be quite specific to individual > locations/regions etc. and will depend on local resources, > capabilities and > so on. This local knowledge/program identification is almost > certainly best > left to local NGO's to develop, what can be done at a policy level is to > enable the local NGO's to do their work -- with appropriate funding, > back up > , support, policy enablement and so on. (BTW, that isn't "civil > societies" > usual role--they are generally acting as advocates while NGO's do the > implementation... > > If you are looking to ideas on how to proceed locally there are lists of > case studies/best practices in various places (I think a big one is being > compiled by UN ECOSOC for WSIS, but unless those are filtered through > local > experience my feeling is that they are rather useless. > > Best, > > M > > > *Pranesh Prakash ** > **2 January* > > > Then you wouldn't say there is anything we can advocate for at the > global level to tackle access issues other than at the level of > normative but unenforceable rights or principles? > > > *Michael Gurstein ** > **2 January* > > > Hi Pranesh, > > I work a lot with indigenous peoples in various parts of the world and > have tried to get them involved in global level initiatives... They > have basically no interest as there is nothing at the global level > that will have an immediate impact on their local circumstances. > > What does have an impact, but is rather more indirect are what you > call "unenforceable rights or principles"... things like global norms > around broadband deployment, recognition of indigenous rights, > inclusion of indigenous peoples into broad initiatives like the > Broadband Task Force that sort of thing... Recognition of them in > those forums means that they then have more leverage in their national > contexts and can make direct programme/policy recommendations/advocacy > initiatives with some sort of global backing--they can call their > national governments to account for commitments made, even " > unenforceable rights or principles" (the only kind of commitments that > national governments are likely to make at the global level... > > The programs/policies that are linked to these are dramatically > different from country to country--from Indigenous people in Canada > linking their national treaties to global agreements, to tribal > peoples in India or Bangladesh looking to the UNDHR as their leverage > point for gaining access to services, to countries in Latin America > taking leadership in global environmental initiatives on behalf of > Pachen Mama... > > But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, give me some examples of > the kind of initiatives you think might be worthwhile presenting at > the global level? > > M > > > *Pranesh Prakash ** > **Tuesday* > > A mail that was stuck in my 'Drafts' folder since January 3! I think it > might be useful to throw open this question to the Best Bits list. > Would you mind if I forward this thread there? > > ==== > Dear Michael, > If *I* knew what we should be doing, I wouldn't be quizzing you like > this. :) > > It's not like there haven't been global policy efforts to improve > access. There's the Digital Solidarity Fund created as part of WSIS. > From what I've been given to understand, it was mired in corruption, and > that ultimately led to its failure. Universal Service Obligation Funds > are one of those best practices things that various countries have > adopted, but which — according to people who know much more about this > than I do — are having precious little effect in most countries. (There > might of course be counter-examples.) > > I think pushing for shared spectrum through the ITU is one part of the > solution. If in the future we manage to get Internet to people, > wireless (whether over phone or WiFi or WiMax or anything else) has got > to be the way to go, since wired connections can't possibly provide > sufficient coverage. This means that spectrum allocation rules, etc., > are among the more important policy changes we could be targetting. > > But apart from that, my current thinking is that most access-enabling > policies have to be passed at the national level. There doesn't seem to > be too much (apart from the examples I've cited above) that can be done > at the global level save for what-might-be-perceived-as platitudinous > statements of our desire for universal access. > > Regards, > 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 > -------------------+ > Postgraduate Associate & 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: From kichango at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 07:40:09 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:40:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <400B785E-4EC1-4161-AED8-221B0BF773D8@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <400B785E-4EC1-4161-AED8-221B0BF773D8@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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. Now back to the main point: Could the following be a worthy solution? Send a brief message of support to the initiative but at a lower level than the presidency, in which we would also announce that a letter to the president will follow within the next two weeks or so. The recipient for the Brazilian government should be someone who has enough official credentials to receive such communications on behalf of the government (starting with Mr Daniel Calvacanti possibly all the way to the Minister) while avoiding any official who might be on the opposite side to President Rousseff on this issue in terms of the Brazilian domestic politics (for instance if that were to be the case of the Minister, avoid this letter going there.) Just an idea I'm tossing around... Not sure it really resolves any of the problems underlining the two perspectives mentioned above. Lastly, to those who want to further entertain the debate about whether these leaders mean what they say, and by the way, what is it that is entailed by what they just said, etc. I'd like to remind you that being strategic is also sometimes to take someone's at his (positive) word and gently push / help him along while keeping your skepticism to yourself. Of course such skepticism will be useful in watching closely the other person's moves and anticipating or getting ready for possible alternate courses of action in case the other person in his actions defaults on his declared intentions. But it shouldn't prevent us from moving forward at first on the basis of an optimistic premise drawn from a probable / justifiable / demonstrable meaning of what they've said. So we don't really need to figure out whether anyone is being naive here or to sit around and wait for anyone to dot the i's and cross the t's in this proposal before we can move on it. My 2, uh... cedies (Ghana currency, in my other wallet, which I can't use where I am, so there you have it.) Mawaki On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 12/10/2013, at 1:07 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other > ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are > interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by > communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we > can work with them on this through the IGF. > > > Also blogging about it. Use your own organisational or personal blog if > you have one. If you don't, CircleID is a good choice. Otherwise you can > actually blog at igcaucus.org itself, or igf-online.net or igfwatch.org. > This (particularly CircleID) would have more reach than a letter anyway. > > Fantastic idea! > > -- > > *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: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 12 09:52:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:22:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <400B785E-4EC1-4161-AED8-221B0BF773D8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52595412.7040907@itforchange.net> Thanks for this excellent analysis, Mawaki, Just adding a few more points. Most of such 'really politically meaningful' initiatives like the Rousseff-ICANN one, rather the somewhat less than real ones like the IGF, look at civil society as a pesky, disruptive group of people, and would not dare take them in into the core organising effort in any really meaningful way... Brazil has been different in substantial ways, both at domestic as well as global levels, and there is an outside chance here that civil society, in its real sense rather just co-opting select people, may just get in a foot in the door early. With the possibility that civil society could in fact be a real partner, as to some extent it is in the Open Government Partnership.... However, unlike like open gov movement, global IG is a highly political space, and any such opportunity will quickly lost. Be sure that right now many big global powers are making fervent calculations about how to respond to this sudden development of Dilma-ICANN initiative, and they will set in various kinds of strategies - including subversive ones - very soon. The canvass therefore is a rapidly shifting one, and if civil society has to act, it has to act rapidly - whichever be the directions of its efforts. That is all.. parminder On Saturday 12 October 2013 05:10 PM, Mawaki Chango 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. > > Now back to the main point: Could the following be a worthy solution? > Send a brief message of support to the initiative but at a lower level > than the presidency, in which we would also announce that a letter to > the president will follow within the next two weeks or so. The > recipient for the Brazilian government should be someone who has > enough official credentials to receive such communications on behalf > of the government (starting with Mr Daniel Calvacanti possibly all the > way to the Minister) while avoiding any official who might be on the > opposite side to President Rousseff on this issue in terms of the > Brazilian domestic politics (for instance if that were to be the case > of the Minister, avoid this letter going there.) Just an idea I'm > tossing around... Not sure it really resolves any of the problems > underlining the two perspectives mentioned above. > > Lastly, to those who want to further entertain the debate about > whether these leaders mean what they say, and by the way, what is it > that is entailed by what they just said, etc. I'd like to remind you > that being strategic is also sometimes to take someone's at his > (positive) word and gently push / help him along while keeping your > skepticism to yourself. Of course such skepticism will be useful in > watching closely the other person's moves and anticipating or getting > ready for possible alternate courses of action in case the other > person in his actions defaults on his declared intentions. But it > shouldn't prevent us from moving forward at first on the basis of an > optimistic premise drawn from a probable / justifiable / demonstrable > meaning of what they've said. So we don't really need to figure out > whether anyone is being naive here or to sit around and wait for > anyone to dot the i's and cross the t's in this proposal before we can > move on it. > > My 2, uh... cedies (Ghana currency, in my other wallet, which I can't > use where I am, so there you have it.) > > Mawaki > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > > On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >> On 12/10/2013, at 1:07 AM, Anja Kovacs > > wrote: >> >>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There >>> are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian >>> government that we are interested in working with them on this >>> and support this idea, including by communicating with them to >>> find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with >>> them on this through the IGF. >> >> Also blogging about it. Use your own organisational or personal >> blog if you have one. If you don't, CircleID is a good choice. >> Otherwise you can actually blog at igcaucus.org >> itself, or igf-online.net >> or igfwatch.org . >> This (particularly CircleID) would have more reach than a letter >> anyway. >> > Fantastic idea! > >> -- >> >> *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: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 3 21:33:21 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:33:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03d701cec0a1$bc677ed0$35367c70$@gmail.com> Is that true? And supposing company X says no, sue me…? Would the teen in BF be able to obtain standing re: this in a US court? M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:30 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads If a service claims to be under the jurisdiction of the courts in California, and Californian law orders the service to provide a data scrubbing mechanism to its users.. I don't see why it matters if a Burkina Faso teen wants to scrub his information, it still does get scrubbed. --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 10/04/2013 6:54 AM (GMT+05:30) To: 'parminder' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads I guess a question to ask is what is the overall The "governance"/policy framework which would allow a teenager in Burkina Faso to have content removed about themselves? In some ways that should be the/an objective of our deliberations… M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568 It is about putting restrictions on some kinds of ads on Internet services, applications etc that aimed at minors. It also allows minors to remove content about themselves. Whatever agreement or disagreement people may have with this particular law, one important issue here is that California can make such law, but not states in other countries, not even national governments. I mean it is so so difficult for them to enforce it, that it may not be worth attempting it. At other places, big companies may simply blackmail them by threats of withdrawal as Google did with governemnt of Taipei a few years back. (which they wont do with Gov of California).... This is how policy space for non US gov entities is shrinking fast, and what it means is that political and democratic space of our world is shrinking... A key global IG issue if there ever was one. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 07:49:26 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:49:26 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 09:48:12 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:48:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> Message-ID: Hi guys, I would hate to see this debate drag on for a few more days because with that time and energy, we could get something out to the Brazilian government/ presidency if that were to be the preferred choice by whatever decision-making procedure is required here. So instead of further debating this, the concerned organs (co-cos or steering committee, depending on whether we're talking about IGC or BestBits) may exercise their judgement as to whether to initiate such decision procedure. I (and I'm sure many others here) certainly can live with either course of action because the truth is nothing is really certain here, keeping in mind the following. 1. We may be looking at about two weeks (not 1) from now for the delivery of any outcome from Bali BestBits to President Rousseff (I am assuming that since the Bali session will be developing a full CS agenda, it might take the whole day session to get something out and there shall be a few days given to online comments and discussions by a broader audience and maybe endorsements, etc.) 2. It is safe to assume that President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade have not personally and directly been working on this initiative since they declared it, but that a team is tasked on both sides to follow up and work on details, etc. IMHO, it is a conjecture to say two weeks from now the train will have left the station just as it is a bet to think it won't (and as a result CS would not be playing catch-up, in its usual reactive mode.) We may choose one path or the other, we should be able to admit that there is no evidence to predict that one will certainly be better for us, across the board, than the other (even though we can make sound arguments as to why we think one or the other would be a smarter and more productive choice), as that outcome will also depend on a number of things that may happen in the next, say, ten days, which we don't have control over. 3. On the basis of the above, if our "Custodians" think it's worth getting into decision mode, then let's get into the decision mode. Otherwise, please let's adjourn the debate as to what is best and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, until Bali. 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including CS proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. Thanks, Mawaki On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > I do want to > > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and > > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. > > *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. > > > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points > > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the consensus > > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have expressed > > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I think it > > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been > > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. > > The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”. > That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are strongly > in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain > opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend political > capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a decision > in favor. > > Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not > expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a > consensus decision from being reached. > > If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in favor, most > organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would never > reach any decisions. > > > we are effectively working against each other here. > > Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some of > the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to > discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action, I > strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working > against each other here”. > > In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign it > does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits > action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter it > could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter it > could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do > understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. > > > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an > > alternative. If that could be a solution for all > > No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since I've > already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present > letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat > them again. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Sun Oct 13 11:29:00 2013 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:29:00 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <20131013114945.D8DC221800D@a2knetwork.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <20131013114945.D8DC221800D@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: I fully agree with the JFC Morfin, and say more like Brazilian, the initiative come from civil society, understand: Until a few months ago, Dilma had another position, followed the advice of the Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, that follow the agenda of telecom companies. Many activists, including me, and opinion leaders criticized the posture of Paul Bernardo, also we decided to criticize Dilma, since in practice, the adherence to the agenda of telecom companies was the government's position, and not only the ministry. Considering the popularity of Rousseff had fallen a lot during the demonstrations in the streets, which were heavily exploited by the opposition to weaken it politically. This new opposition coming from the Internet could be tragic for his project of re-election in 2014. After conversation with his predecessor, Lula, Dilma became advised by Franklin Martins, and during this process she met with CGI.Br where she got much of his speech at the UN. This speech that won strong support from the international community, as we know. Also we know that ICANN strives to strengthen its multistakeholder model, and thus distance themselves from the image of being an "appendix" of the U.S. government. Realizing the opportunity arose after Rousseff's speech at the UN, Fadi and his counselors come immediately to meet our President to seize this window of opportunity that open. And that we have to face, a window of opportunity, we from the civil society have to position ourselves as protagonists behind this "wave", because we know that bad decisions that could change the internet as we know, it may arise, and this time we have to act together and strengthened to rebate. My $0,02 - João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 13/10/2013, às 08:49, JFC Morfin escreveu: > > At 20:52 11/10/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Valid point Parminder. >>> By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that... > > Then ?... > > It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN as a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and, therefore, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with her speech. To succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is led by US StakeHolders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather when they call on us in response to our first letter. > > If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US, Brazil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it is not) Dilma’s Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector, international organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it will be NTIA's coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with the ITU Dubai-signatories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as a liaison), using all of us. I have nothing against the US "e-colonization" strategy (which is named "internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode; OECD in economy, NATO in military), except that: > > - I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital ecosystem because it is based on 1983 architectural statUS-quo that is to protect a market and political statUS-quo. > - I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy. Globalization is a practical fact that raises problems (economic crisis, global warming, etc.). The world's uncontrolled globalization is a pandemic that has to be taken care of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism. > - If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA: who would in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH hijacking by ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only with those two? > > Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic governance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that the NSA was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a secret agency that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about ours? > > Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazil’s President? > > What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian, Malian, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) people’s positions and societal, industrial, and Telcos’ interests? Why don’t we discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization? Why do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few of us? > > This is most probably because a global democracy can only be multilateralistic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a dominance). In our area, this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo that benefits the US and all those having a stake in the US private sector) – actually both as we saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We know that none of them could be sustainable as they would resurrect the cold war. Actually what we should try to work out is a multicultural, multilinguistic, multinational, multistakeholder, open and, therefore, non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal of the democratic ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time. > > Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called polycracy. Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while we still try to understand the way they work and discover its best practices, its incompletion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hysteresis) confuse us, pollute everyone’s thinking, and deny all of us the experience that we need. > > NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment (statUS-quo). > > Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that there is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for international societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss and word out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in the facts (not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more adequately through the digital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay, and use for and on the net). > > Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have to consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and globally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital extension do we want? How do we achieve and protect it? > > A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting ICANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization rights as per the Internet technology (and ICANN’s own documents)? > > Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the circumstances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want to better pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives. > > jfc > >>> parminder >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>>> On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>>> Anja +1 >>>>> >>>>> We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics. >>>>> >>>>> I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately  will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... >>>>> >>>>> regards >>>>> >>>>> Robert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> R. Guerra >>>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>> >>>>>> On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. >>>>>> >>>>>> My two paise, >>>>>> Anja >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >>>>>> > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is >>>>>> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >>>>>> > havent been told the risk - and beyond  a point, just about any >>>>>> > political act carries risk. >>>>>> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >>>>>> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >>>>>> certainty of losing that opportunity. >>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>> Norbert >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>>> >>>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Sun Oct 13 12:16:37 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:16:37 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> A few months ago Snowden happened, which affected the positions taken by many heads-of-state, including, very clearly, President Rousseff. As to the idea that NTIA is behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia - I find this not credible at all: why on earth would the USG welcome a head-of-state-led conference on the role of surveillance in society, especially one organised in Brasilia with the active participation of the Brazilian head-of-state? And, if they would welcome it, all they'd have to do is say so publicly: that would get them a lot of positive visibility. Doing it by proxy gets them nothing. On 13 Oct 2013, at 17:29, " João Carlos R. Caribé " wrote: > I fully agree with the JFC Morfin, and say more like Brazilian, the initiative come from civil society, understand: > > Until a few months ago, Dilma had another position, followed the advice of the Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, that follow the agenda of telecom companies. > > Many activists, including me, and opinion leaders criticized the posture of Paul Bernardo, also we decided to criticize Dilma, since in practice, the adherence to the agenda of telecom companies was the government's position, and not only the ministry. > > Considering the popularity of Rousseff had fallen a lot during the demonstrations in the streets, which were heavily exploited by the opposition to weaken it politically. This new opposition coming from the Internet could be tragic for his project of re-election in 2014. > > After conversation with his predecessor, Lula, Dilma became advised by Franklin Martins, and during this process she met with CGI.Br where she got much of his speech at the UN. This speech that won strong support from the international community, as we know. > > Also we know that ICANN strives to strengthen its multistakeholder model, and thus distance themselves from the image of being an "appendix" of the U.S. government. Realizing the opportunity arose after Rousseff's speech at the UN, Fadi and his counselors come immediately to meet our President to seize this window of opportunity that open. > > And that we have to face, a window of opportunity, we from the civil society have to position ourselves as protagonists behind this "wave", because we know that bad decisions that could change the internet as we know, it may arise, and this time we have to act together and strengthened to rebate. > > My $0,02 > > - > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via iPad > > Em 13/10/2013, às 08:49, JFC Morfin escreveu: > >> At 20:52 11/10/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Valid point Parminder. >>>> By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that... >> >> Then ?... >> >> It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN as a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and, therefore, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with her speech. To succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is led by US StakeHolders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather when they call on us in response to our first letter. >> >> If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US, Brazil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it is not) Dilma’s Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector, international organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it will be NTIA's coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with the ITU Dubai-signatories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as a liaison), using all of us. I have nothing against the US "e-colonization" strategy (which is named "internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode; OECD in economy, NATO in military), except that: >> >> - I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital ecosystem because it is based on 1983 architectural statUS-quo that is to protect a market and political statUS-quo. >> - I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy. Globalization is a practical fact that raises problems (economic crisis, global warming, etc.). The world's uncontrolled globalization is a pandemic that has to be taken care of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism. >> - If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA: who would in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH hijacking by ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only with those two? >> >> Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic governance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that the NSA was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a secret agency that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about ours? >> >> Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazil’s President? >> >> What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian, Malian, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) people’s positions and societal, industrial, and Telcos’ interests? Why don’t we discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization? Why do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few of us? >> >> This is most probably because a global democracy can only be multilateralistic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a dominance). In our area, this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo that benefits the US and all those having a stake in the US private sector) – actually both as we saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We know that none of them could be sustainable as they would resurrect the cold war. Actually what we should try to work out is a multicultural, multilinguistic, multinational, multistakeholder, open and, therefore, non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal of the democratic ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time. >> >> Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called polycracy. Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while we still try to understand the way they work and discover its best practices, its incompletion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hysteresis) confuse us, pollute everyone’s thinking, and deny all of us the experience that we need. >> >> NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment (statUS-quo). >> >> Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that there is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for international societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss and word out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in the facts (not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more adequately through the digital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay, and use for and on the net). >> >> Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have to consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and globally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital extension do we want? How do we achieve and protect it? >> >> A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting ICANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization rights as per the Internet technology (and ICANN’s own documents)? >> >> Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the circumstances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want to better pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives. >> >> jfc >> >>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>>>> Anja +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics. >>>>>> >>>>>> I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately  will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... >>>>>> >>>>>> regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> R. Guerra >>>>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My two paise, >>>>>>> Anja >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>>> Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >>>>>>> > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is >>>>>>> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >>>>>>> > havent been told the risk - and beyond  a point, just about any >>>>>>> > political act carries risk. >>>>>>> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >>>>>>> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >>>>>>> certainty of losing that opportunity. >>>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>>> Norbert >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 >>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: From joao.caribe at me.com Sun Oct 13 13:17:11 2013 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:17:11 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. _ João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 13/10/2013, às 13:16, Nick Ashton-Hart escreveu: > > A few months ago Snowden happened, which affected the positions taken by many heads-of-state, including, very clearly, President Rousseff. > > As to the idea that NTIA is behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia - I find this not credible at all: why on earth would the USG welcome a head-of-state-led conference on the role of surveillance in society, especially one organised in Brasilia with the active participation of the Brazilian head-of-state? And, if they would welcome it, all they'd have to do is say so publicly: that would get them a lot of positive visibility. Doing it by proxy gets them nothing. > >> On 13 Oct 2013, at 17:29, " João Carlos R. Caribé " wrote: >> >> I fully agree with the JFC Morfin, and say more like Brazilian, the initiative come from civil society, understand: >> >> Until a few months ago, Dilma had another position, followed the advice of the Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, that follow the agenda of telecom companies. >> >> Many activists, including me, and opinion leaders criticized the posture of Paul Bernardo, also we decided to criticize Dilma, since in practice, the adherence to the agenda of telecom companies was the government's position, and not only the ministry. >> >> Considering the popularity of Rousseff had fallen a lot during the demonstrations in the streets, which were heavily exploited by the opposition to weaken it politically. This new opposition coming from the Internet could be tragic for his project of re-election in 2014. >> >> After conversation with his predecessor, Lula, Dilma became advised by Franklin Martins, and during this process she met with CGI.Br where she got much of his speech at the UN. This speech that won strong support from the international community, as we know. >> >> Also we know that ICANN strives to strengthen its multistakeholder model, and thus distance themselves from the image of being an "appendix" of the U.S. government. Realizing the opportunity arose after Rousseff's speech at the UN, Fadi and his counselors come immediately to meet our President to seize this window of opportunity that open. >> >> And that we have to face, a window of opportunity, we from the civil society have to position ourselves as protagonists behind this "wave", because we know that bad decisions that could change the internet as we know, it may arise, and this time we have to act together and strengthened to rebate. >> >> My $0,02 >> >> - >> João Carlos Caribé >> (021) 8761 1967 >> (021) 4042 7727 >> Skype joaocaribe >> Enviado via iPad >> >>> Em 13/10/2013, às 08:49, JFC Morfin escreveu: >>> >>> At 20:52 11/10/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> Valid point Parminder. >>>>> By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that... >>> >>> Then ?... >>> >>> It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN as a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and, therefore, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with her speech. To succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is led by US StakeHolders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather when they call on us in response to our first letter. >>> >>> If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US, Brazil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it is not) Dilma’s Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector, international organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it will be NTIA's coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with the ITU Dubai-signatories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as a liaison), using all of us. I have nothing against the US "e-colonization" strategy (which is named "internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode; OECD in economy, NATO in military), except that: >>> >>> - I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital ecosystem because it is based on 1983 architectural statUS-quo that is to protect a market and political statUS-quo. >>> - I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy. Globalization is a practical fact that raises problems (economic crisis, global warming, etc.). The world's uncontrolled globalization is a pandemic that has to be taken care of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism. >>> - If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA: who would in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH hijacking by ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only with those two? >>> >>> Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic governance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that the NSA was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a secret agency that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about ours? >>> >>> Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazil’s President? >>> >>> What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian, Malian, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) people’s positions and societal, industrial, and Telcos’ interests? Why don’t we discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization? Why do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few of us? >>> >>> This is most probably because a global democracy can only be multilateralistic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a dominance). In our area, this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo that benefits the US and all those having a stake in the US private sector) – actually both as we saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We know that none of them could be sustainable as they would resurrect the cold war. Actually what we should try to work out is a multicultural, multilinguistic, multinational, multistakeholder, open and, therefore, non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal of the democratic ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time. >>> >>> Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called polycracy. Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while we still try to understand the way they work and discover its best practices, its incompletion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hysteresis) confuse us, pollute everyone’s thinking, and deny all of us the experience that we need. >>> >>> NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment (statUS-quo). >>> >>> Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that there is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for international societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss and word out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in the facts (not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more adequately through the digital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay, and use for and on the net). >>> >>> Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have to consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and globally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital extension do we want? How do we achieve and protect it? >>> >>> A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting ICANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization rights as per the Internet technology (and ICANN’s own documents)? >>> >>> Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the circumstances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want to better pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives. >>> >>> jfc >>> >>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> Anriette >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>>>>> Anja +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately  will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> R. Guerra >>>>>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My two paise, >>>>>>>> Anja >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>>>> Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is >>>>>>>> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >>>>>>>> > havent been told the risk - and beyond  a point, just about any >>>>>>>> > political act carries risk. >>>>>>>> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >>>>>>>> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >>>>>>>> certainty of losing that opportunity. >>>>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>>>> Norbert >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> 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 >>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>>> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 20:49:11 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:49:11 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Oct 14 01:37:26 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:37:26 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> Message-ID: <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> Hi On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. Not behind, but in the mix. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Oct 14 09:04:16 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:04:16 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC2218 0 0D"@a2knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> Message-ID: <4646828B-CCF7-41E4-B8FE-18377B3C6DD2@consensus.pro> That's certainly true, as I have no idea what 'timed complexity' is. On 14 Oct 2013, at 02:13, JFC Morfin (Intlnet) wrote: > I am afraid we do not think the world's timed complexity in the same manner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: From avri at acm.org Mon Oct 14 09:25:33 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:25:33 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> Hi, I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions. None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives. If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals. If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another. I assume the latter. The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments. NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals. I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me. In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage. And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational. I think this is the case for Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits. avri On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > >> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. > > Not behind, but in the mix. > > Bill -------------- 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: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 09:43:11 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:43:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> Message-ID: This back and forth conversation has been very interesting. The only thing I have to add is that I believe we should try to keep all options open as possible paths forward, and as Anja has been suggesting focus in Bali on what our substantive demands are from policymakers and the corporate sector. I don't believe it is useful to guess motives of various players, but instead take advantage of possible opportunities and develop a more robust CS agenda. The forum (or fora) for resolving our demands may be more clear over time, as these various initiatives unfold. On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions. > > None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives. > > If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals. > > If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another. > > I assume the latter. > > The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments. NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals. > > I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me. > > In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage. > > And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational. I think this is the case for Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits. > > avri > > > > > On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: >> >>> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. >> >> Not behind, but in the mix. >> >> Bill > From antiropy at gmail.com Thu Oct 3 22:34:29 2013 From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:34:29 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul Message-ID: Hi all, Several press reported that so called 'Seoul Principle' will be made as an outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/10/120_143618.html interview of Ambassador for International Security Affairs at S. Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/32042/inside-seoul-conference-cyberspace-2013 In other press, (which is in Korean, so rough translation) Republic of Korea as well as the United States and the United Kingdom, China and Hungary which had been under constant cyber attacks, lead this principle and other major 20 countries including France and Germany have agreed to it. Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which regard cyberspace as neutal, had show different view with China and Russia which see as national sovereignty, but all countries sympathized with general principle that cyberspace should be a peaceful place, so they are tring to complete 'Seoul Principle' through the intense debate. As of now, they are seeking agreement for the draft from all participants, and most major countries have agreed, so in the situation around 90~95% of the final stage." Best, Oh Byoungil -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 11:17:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:17:08 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org > <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> Message-ID: <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> While agreeing in general with your statement below Gene I think this discussion cannot be separated from a discussion of appropriate potential modalities for implementation of such an agenda. One of the things that has become very clear to me over the course of the last round of discussion is that there seems to be a clear division between those who focus on outcomes and those for whom a concern with the framework of the delivery of those outcomes seems to be paramount. To be specific, some in our grouping are for example focussed on Human Rights and the Internet however that might be ensured; while others have articulated such a deep suspicion of the possible role and influence of the State (whether all States or just some is not clear) that they insist that any initiative in support of Human Rights and the Internet must necessarily be framed in a non-State supported framework i.e. where the only support for Human Rights (as an example) can come through the dominance of multistakeholder processes. My feeling is that this division is irresolveable. To add a brief observation, we know from Snowden that the subversion of Multistakeholderism by the NSA has gone to the very heart of Intenet development through its actions around standard setting in the IETF (and the IETF and the other technical agencies have responded in the only manner possible i.e. the Montevideo Declaration). It is thus hard to understand the almost religious advocacy of MSism by some without a counterveiling recognition of the need to provide an appropriate governance framework of accountabllity and transparency for MSism. Associated with this is the further need to anchor this MSism governance in some sort of framework of international norms and statutes which can only come through multilateral processes in which of course, there should necessarily be the broadest base of particiaption by those most immediately impacted. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:43 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? This back and forth conversation has been very interesting. The only thing I have to add is that I believe we should try to keep all options open as possible paths forward, and as Anja has been suggesting focus in Bali on what our substantive demands are from policymakers and the corporate sector. I don't believe it is useful to guess motives of various players, but instead take advantage of possible opportunities and develop a more robust CS agenda. The forum (or fora) for resolving our demands may be more clear over time, as these various initiatives unfold. On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions. > > None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives. > > If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals. > > If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another. > > I assume the latter. > > The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments. NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals. > > I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me. > > In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage. > > And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational. I think this is the case for Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits. > > avri > > > > > On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: >> >>> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. >> >> Not behind, but in the mix. >> >> Bill > From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 11:49:30 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:49:30 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? Message-ID: Thanks Michael,  your response raises the very issue I hope Best Bits can resolve (for itself,  at least). I have the impression that many,  although striving for a more just world,  accept geo-political realities and seek opportunities to promote policy as they seek to alter those constraints. Others are more focused on getting the processes/modalities right from the get go,  doubting the potential for much incremental progress within current structures.  Maybe Best Bits should, (not exclusively,  but generally) pick one if these approaches. Then another coalition could focus on the other,  and we can attempt to align their work when posssble? -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: To: 'Gene Kimmelman' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? While agreeing in general with your statement below Gene I think this discussion cannot be separated from a discussion of appropriate potential modalities for implementation of such an agenda. One of the things that has become very clear to me over the course of the last round of discussion is that there seems to be a clear division between those who focus on outcomes and those for whom a concern with the framework of the delivery of those outcomes seems to be paramount. To be specific, some in our grouping are for example focussed on Human Rights and the Internet however that might be ensured; while others have articulated such a deep suspicion of the possible role and influence of the State (whether all States or just some is not clear) that they insist that any initiative in support of Human Rights and the Internet must necessarily be framed in a non-State supported framework i.e. where the only support for Human Rights (as an example) can come through the dominance of multistakeholder processes. My feeling is that this division is irresolveable. To add a brief observation, we know from Snowden that the subversion of Multistakeholderism by the NSA has gone to the very heart of Intenet development through its actions around standard setting in the IETF (and the IETF and the other technical  agencies have responded in the only manner possible i.e. the Montevideo Declaration). It is thus hard to understand the almost religious advocacy of MSism by some without a counterveiling recognition of the need to provide an appropriate governance framework of accountabllity and transparency for MSism.  Associated with this is the further need to anchor this MSism governance in some sort of framework of international norms and statutes which can only come through multilateral processes in which of course, there should necessarily be the broadest base of particiaption by those most immediately impacted. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:43 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? This back and forth conversation has been very interesting.  The only thing I have to add is that I believe we should try to keep all options open as possible paths forward, and as Anja has been suggesting focus in Bali on what our substantive demands are from policymakers and the corporate sector. I don't believe it is useful to guess motives of various players, but instead take advantage of possible opportunities and develop a more robust CS agenda.  The forum (or fora) for resolving our demands may be more clear over time, as these various initiatives unfold. On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions. > > None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives. > > If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals. > > If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another. > > I assume the latter. > > The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments.  NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals. > > I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance.   So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me. > > In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage. > > And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational.  I think this is the case for Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits. > > avri > > > > > On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: >> >>> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. >> >> Not behind, but in the mix.  >> >> Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 14:50:54 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:50:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ICANN Strategic Planning Message-ID: It would be interesting to discuss how we can contribute more directly to ICANN strategic planning taking into consideration the recent developments involving Brazil. There are opportunities for CS engagement. See below. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09oct13-en.htm "To provide more opportunity for community consideration and public comment on a draft ICANN Vision and 5-year Strategic Plan, the development schedule has been extended to accommodate *two rounds of online public input, *and community discussions at the ICANN Buenos Aires (November 2013) and Singapore (March 2014) meetings." -- *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: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Oct 14 15:32:11 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:32:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org > <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <525C46BB.10601@cis-india.org> michael gurstein [2013-10-14 11:17]: > To add a brief observation, we know from Snowden that the subversion of > Multistakeholderism by the NSA has gone to the very heart of Intenet > development through its actions around standard setting in the IETF (and the Do you have a link for this? I'm guessing you're talking about the Guardian/NYT/Pro Publica pieces. I don't recall reading anything about the IETF or other I* body there. If it is the IPSEC charge that you're talking about: I don't find any evidence to support John Gilmore's insinuations; frankly there are better explanations for why IPSEC didn't take off. -- 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 17:14:52 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:14:52 -0400 Subject: FW: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org > <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> <525C46BB.10601@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <005b01cec922$6d13faa0$473befe0$@gmail.com> ? https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_nsa_is_brea.html http://programming.oreilly.com/2013/09/after-the-nsa-subverted-security-stan dards.html http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2294419/ietf-to-consider-prism-proof-sec urity-architectures-for-the-web Schneier is giving the keynote on precisely this issue at the upcoming IETF meeting in November. M -----Original Message----- From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 3:32 PM To: michael gurstein; 'Gene Kimmelman' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? michael gurstein [2013-10-14 11:17]: > To add a brief observation, we know from Snowden that the subversion > of Multistakeholderism by the NSA has gone to the very heart of > Intenet development through its actions around standard setting in the > IETF (and the Do you have a link for this? I'm guessing you're talking about the Guardian/NYT/Pro Publica pieces. I don't recall reading anything about the IETF or other I* body there. If it is the IPSEC charge that you're talking about: I don't find any evidence to support John Gilmore's insinuations; frankly there are better explanations for why IPSEC didn't take off. -- 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 From avri at acm.org Mon Oct 14 17:38:04 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:38:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <005b01cec922$6d13faa0$473befe0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org > <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> <525C46BB.10601@cis-india .org> <005b01cec922$6d13faa0$473befe0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6560E818-FD90-4553-AA37-C32DF3C4A115@acm.org> On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:14, michael gurstein wrote: > Schneier is giving the keynote on precisely this issue at the upcoming IETF > meeting in November. And then much time is going to be spent focusing on what needs to be done about it. 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: From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Oct 14 20:49:32 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 02:49:32 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <525C46BB.10601@cis-india.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org > <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> <525C46BB.10601@cis-india.org> Message-ID: At 21:32 14/10/2013, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >Do you have a link for this? The internet architecture has not been designed (it was a prototype) and reviewed for security (this belongs first to IRTF and IAB). Why was the NIPRNET, SIPRNET and JWICS technology made open sources, since open source is supposed to achieve better and more secure technology. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237360/U.S._military_networks_not_prepared_for_cyberthreats_report_warns The way NSA etc. have negatively influenced security is in not showing the path to better security. This was both by ignorance and by purpose. This is what we need to technically correct with a clear methodology. Today, RFC 6852 puts IETF outside of the security holy loop. As Avri says it is going to be interesting to see the participants' reaction to the leadership's line. Best jfc From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Oct 14 21:15:18 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:15:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <4646828B-CCF7-41E4-B8FE-18377B3C6DD2@consensus.pro> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC2218 0 0D"@a2knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <4646828B-CCF7-41E4-B8FE-18377B3C6DD2@consensus.pro> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 14 23:22:37 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:22:37 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <6560E818-FD90-4553-AA37-C32DF3C4A115@acm.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org > <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> <525C46BB.10601@c is-india .org> <005b01cec922$6d13faa0$473befe0$@gmail.com> <6560E818-FD90-4553-AA37-C32DF3C4A115@acm.org> Message-ID: <8A1A1735-6E88-4B21-B7D4-E4A6B6D799F4@glocom.ac.jp> On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:14, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Schneier is giving the keynote on precisely this issue at the upcoming IETF >> meeting in November. > > > And then much time is going to be spent focusing on what needs to be done about it. > and none of the links seem to support the original claim: >> >> To add a brief observation, we know from Snowden that the subversion of >> Multistakeholderism by the NSA has gone to the very heart of Intenet >> development through its actions around standard setting in the IETF (and the > however , is this part of what the IETF is looking at? Seems the reaction far from a sign of failure, a pointer to a model working. NSA (GCHQ) activities have gone to the heart of all communications, NIST, ISO, and have no doubt been doing so since CCITT and whatever came before... Isn't ultracrepidarianism a wonderful word describing how we all often behave online. I know I'm guilty :-) Adam > avri > From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Oct 15 01:50:42 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 01:50:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <20131015004942.B2B023F4BBB@a2knetwork.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org > <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> <525C46BB.10601@cis-india.org> <20131015004942.B2B023F4BBB@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: <525CD7B2.2020808@cis-india.org> JFC Morfin [2013-10-14 20:49]: > At 21:32 14/10/2013, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> Do you have a link for this? > > The internet architecture has not been designed (it was a prototype) and > reviewed for security (this belongs first to IRTF and IAB). This is true. But that doesn't answer my question about NSA weakening IETF or other similar bodies. NSA has been shown to have meddled with NIST processes (by introducing a PRNG called Dual EC DRBG in the NIST SP 800-90A standard), but as far as I know no IETF/IRTF/IESG/IAB, etc. body ever considered those. NIST and NSA are statutorily wedded to each other: NIST is *required* under US law to work with the NSA in crypto standards formulation. Also there have been many attempts at fixing Internet security, including IPsec, DNSsec, TLS, etc. There have literally been dozens of RFCs addressing security, including end-to-end security. There have also been efforts like RADIUS, SSH, SASL, and numerous others. See, for example: http://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc-1825.txt http://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc-2316.txt Many of these RFCs came out in the 1990s. > The way NSA etc. have negatively influenced security is in not showing > the path to better security. This was both by ignorance and by purpose. > This is what we need to technically correct with a clear methodology. > Today, RFC 6852 puts IETF outside of the security holy loop. I'm not at all clear to me what RFC 6852 has to do with security standards. Even if your complaint is the non-overlapping of RFC 6582 with RFC 3935, I don't see how that "puts IETF outside of the security holy loop", nor for that matter do I understand what "the security holy loop" is. -- 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 4 03:35:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 13:05:16 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> I had previously cautioned that some kind of important "Seoul Principles' will be worked out at the conference. So, friends, it is in these rather tightly-controlled forums, designed and run by OECD countries (chiefly, the US and UK, in this case) where real global Internet governance is taking place. But, from the reactions that my post on this subject got a few days back, civil society seems still insistent on keeping its head tightly dug in the sand. And we want to pursue in full vigor the rather non-consequential events like WSIS plus 10 conference to be hosted by the ITU in April next..... (Remember the UNESCO's WSIS plus 10 event earlier this year!) Any reason, why we dont target events where the powerful OECD countries, otherwise civil society's comrades-in-arms on multistakeholderism, un-regulated, bottom-up Internet and so on, undertake real global IG, and only target genuinely multi-lateral forums, like those associated with the UN, where at least all countries are allowed to participate... And these UN forums are much much more open.... Look at the Seoul conference. It is not possible to even register and attend it in an unhindered manner for a civil society organisation, what to talk about substantially participating. And see how all the preparatory processes, and actual text negotiations is shrouded in so much secrecy. Compare it to the WSIS process, where any entity could get its inputs into the text at any stage, which was then openly negotiated over a vast screen... Friends, we have got something absolutely wrong here, and need to reassess our positions and priorities. As a communication rights activist said on another list recently, characterising the current situation about global Internet governance, 'an 'irrational normal' always exists in tension, awaiting its 'the emperor has no clothes' moment . It for the global IG civil society to make that call..... Or, in default, it can awaits its own 'the emperor has no clothes' moment. What I am asking here is - do we want to write to the Seoul conference organisers about how badly and wrongly organised their meeting it, and therefore what comes out of it simply has no legitimacy... And also, at the BestBits meeting in Bali, when we discuss global IG spaces, give due prominence to such rich countries run and controlled forums - and hit at the core of illegitimate power, which is civil society's prime business to do. By the way, it is one of the funniest statements to hear ------"Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which regard cyberspace as neutral,........... " Yes, neutral for completely unhindered transgressions and theft of other people's data..... Now we know what 'neutral' and 'unregulated' really is meant to mean.... Also perhaps why these countries were so much against mentioning the term 'security' in an international enforceable agreement like the ITRs.... They sure want to keep the Internet 'neutral', and civil society merrily follows the pipe piper's alluring tune... parminder On Friday 04 October 2013 08:04 AM, Byoung-il Oh wrote: > Hi all, > > Several press reported that so called 'Seoul Principle' will be made > as an outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul. > > http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/10/120_143618.html > > interview of Ambassador for International Security Affairs at S. > Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs > http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/32042/inside-seoul-conference-cyberspace-2013 > > In other press, (which is in Korean, so rough translation) > > Republic of Korea as well as the United States and the United Kingdom, > China and Hungary which had been under constant cyber attacks, lead > this principle and other major 20 countries including France and > Germany have agreed to it. > > > Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which > regard cyberspace as neutal, had show different view with China and > Russia which see as national sovereignty, but all countries > sympathized with general principle that cyberspace should be a > peaceful place, so they are tring to complete 'Seoul Principle' > through the intense debate. As of now, they are seeking agreement for > the draft from all participants, and most major countries have agreed, > so in the situation around 90~95% of the final stage." > > Best, > Oh Byoungil > > -- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Oct 15 03:38:21 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:38:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? Message-ID: Hi On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions. > > None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives. And conversations with the folks involved. > > If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals. > > If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another. > > I assume the latter. I don't think it's just an assumption. But there are of course internal debates and countervailing pressures, so this has to be done very carefully and in a somewhat evolutionary manner, recognizing the substantial domestic political constraints. It's not like the administration could be relishing the prospect of a campaign on Fox News etc. with the Tea Party screaming "Obama hands over the Internet", much less all the real power centers that will be nervous about a headlong dive into the unknown. So there's a lot that would have to be done to keep this on course, and alas NTIA staff cannot even legally respond to their email at the moment, much less engage in global discussion. > > The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments. NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals. Fair to say, and worth remembering when making sweeping statements about this or any other government (see Wolfgang's recent note on endemic intra-ministerial fragmentation). > > I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me. > > In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage. And one side seems increasingly inclined to understand the TOR a bit flexibly. > > And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational. I think this is the case for Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits. Yes. Best, Bill > > > > > On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: >> >>> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. >> >> Not behind, but in the mix. >> >> Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 15 03:54:24 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:54:24 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131015095424.3f92afb7@quill> Thanks, Bill, for sharing this valuable information! This perspective certainly helps gain a more well-rounded understanding of what is going on. FWIW I agree with the NTIA's assessment that the US “oversight” role of ICANN is in today's constellation nothing but a political liability for the US; it is not a source of true power of any kind that would be of value to the US. Greetings, Norbert William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions. > > > > None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all > > sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives. > > And conversations with the folks involved. > > > > If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its > > influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against > > their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals. > > > > If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane > > and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while > > seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another. > > > > I assume the latter. > > I don't think it's just an assumption. But there are of course > internal debates and countervailing pressures, so this has to be done > very carefully and in a somewhat evolutionary manner, recognizing the > substantial domestic political constraints. It's not like the > administration could be relishing the prospect of a campaign on Fox > News etc. with the Tea Party screaming "Obama hands over the > Internet", much less all the real power centers that will be nervous > about a headlong dive into the unknown. So there's a lot that would > have to be done to keep this on course, and alas NTIA staff cannot > even legally respond to their email at the moment, much less engage > in global discussion. > > > > The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of > > dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various > > departments. NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals. > > Fair to say, and worth remembering when making sweeping statements > about this or any other government (see Wolfgang's recent note on > endemic intra-ministerial fragmentation). > > > > I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider > > multi stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them > > being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me. > > > > In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I > > think the US and ICANN have an open marriage. > > And one side seems increasingly inclined to understand the TOR a bit > flexibly. > > > > And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I > > think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators > > especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into > > account that they are new directions and still largely > > aspirational. I think this is the case for Civil Society both > > inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of > > International Civil Society that gather in BestBits. > > Yes. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting > >>> in Brasilia. > >> > >> Not behind, but in the mix. > >> > >> Bill > > > From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 15 05:11:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:11:11 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <525CD7B2.2020808@cis-india.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> <525C46BB.10601@cis-india.org> <20131015004942.B2B023F4BBB@a2knetwork.org> <525CD7B2.2020808@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <20131015111111.1032b1fe@quill> Pranesh Prakash wrote: > This is true. But that doesn't answer my question about NSA weakening > IETF or other similar bodies. It is publicly known that NSA employees are participating in IETF. That is not hidden in any way. Certainly these NSA employees have not been pursuing objective contrary to what is now known to have been the overall objective of the NSA. A firsthand account of this is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography at metzdowd.com/msg12325.html Getting security right is hard, especially in a committee process. Even if IETF's processes are (compared to other standardization organizations) relatively robust against capture, after having just re-read John Gilmore's account, I'm getting the impression that the NSA very likely successfully prevented a better IPSEC spec. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Oct 15 05:17:11 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 05:17:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <20131015111111.1032b1fe@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> <525C46BB.10601@cis-india.org> <20131015004942.B2B023F4BBB@a2knetwork.org> <525CD7B2.2020808@cis-india.org> <20131015111111.1032b1fe@quill> Message-ID: <525D0817.8050405@cis-india.org> Norbert Bollow [2013-10-15 05:11]: > Certainly these NSA employees have not been pursuing objective contrary > to what is now known to have been the overall objective of the NSA. > > A firsthand account of this is here: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography at metzdowd.com/msg12325.html Norbert, I already responded to this in the mail you're replying to: "If it is the IPSEC charge that you're talking about: I don't find any evidence to support John Gilmore's insinuations; frankly there are better explanations for why IPSEC didn't take off." You might also want to read Jeffrey Schiller's response to Gilmore: -- 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: From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Oct 15 08:21:25 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:21:25 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? Message-ID: Dear Pranesh, I am sorry, I have not been clear enough with someone who is obvioulsy a serious professionnal of the issue. As you underline it there are many involvements at multiple conceptual layers through many forms of influence. Responding to you at this level calls for more than a single mail. I am working these days on an IUCG section on this and your inputs help to better cover the issue. Please allow me some few days to start an open work on the matter. I will certainly come back to you. Best jfc From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 10:35:01 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:35:01 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02a801cec9b3$c22f45d0$468dd170$@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Avri, Interesting arguments based on an assumption of significant USG Internet policy incoherence*, and of course you may have a deeper insight into the behaviour of the USG than others but I'm seeing the following from this quite recent policy statement from the Obama Whitehouse: MAY 2011, Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World: INTERNATIONAL STR ATEGY FOR CYBERSPACE http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strat egy_for_cyberspace.pdf Strength at Home Ensuring the resilience of our networks and information systems requires collective and concerted national action that spans the whole of government, in collaboration with the private sector and individual citizens. The report goes on to outline the principles/strategy being promoted by the USG including matters of governance, internal and external security, infrastructure etc.etc. A quick read of this statement is interesting background to the discussions we are about to have in Bali. M *A bit surprising I would have thought given the recognition at least in the Executive Office of the long term significance of the Internet--"This world—cyberspace—is a world that we depend on every single day Barack Obama From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:38 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? Hi On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions. None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives. And conversations with the folks involved. If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals. If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another. I assume the latter. I don't think it's just an assumption. But there are of course internal debates and countervailing pressures, so this has to be done very carefully and in a somewhat evolutionary manner, recognizing the substantial domestic political constraints. It's not like the administration could be relishing the prospect of a campaign on Fox News etc. with the Tea Party screaming "Obama hands over the Internet", much less all the real power centers that will be nervous about a headlong dive into the unknown. So there's a lot that would have to be done to keep this on course, and alas NTIA staff cannot even legally respond to their email at the moment, much less engage in global discussion. The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments. NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals. Fair to say, and worth remembering when making sweeping statements about this or any other government (see Wolfgang's recent note on endemic intra-ministerial fragmentation). I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me. In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage. And one side seems increasingly inclined to understand the TOR a bit flexibly. And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational. I think this is the case for Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits. Yes. Best, Bill On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote: Hi On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. Not behind, but in the mix. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Oct 15 11:48:15 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:48:15 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <8A1A1735-6E88-4B21-B7D4-E4A6B6D799F4@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org > <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> <525C46BB.10601@c is-india .org> <005b01cec922$6d13faa0$473befe0$@gmail.com> <6560E818-FD90-4553-AA37-C32DF3C4A115@acm.org> <8A1A1735-6E88-4B21-B7D4-E4A6B6D799F4@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <525D63BF.2050002@cafonso.ca> This ultracrepiwhatever is typical of Brazilian journalists :) and I am probably guilty too... --c.a. On 10/15/2013 12:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:14, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>> Schneier is giving the keynote on precisely this issue at the upcoming IETF >>> meeting in November. >> >> >> And then much time is going to be spent focusing on what needs to be done about it. >> > > and none of the links seem to support the original claim: > >>> >>> To add a brief observation, we know from Snowden that the subversion of >>> Multistakeholderism by the NSA has gone to the very heart of Intenet >>> development through its actions around standard setting in the IETF (and the >> > > > however , is this part of what the IETF is looking at? Seems the reaction far from a sign of failure, a pointer to a model working. > > NSA (GCHQ) activities have gone to the heart of all communications, NIST, ISO, and have no doubt been doing so since CCITT and whatever came before... > > Isn't ultracrepidarianism a wonderful word describing how we all often behave online. I know I'm guilty :-) > > Adam > > > > >> avri >> > > From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Oct 15 12:02:22 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:02:22 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <02a801cec9b3$c22f45d0$468dd170$@gmail.com> References: <02a801cec9b3$c22f45d0$468dd170$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Oct 15 13:16:08 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:16:08 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <525CD7B2.2020808@cis-india.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org > <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> <045b01cec8f0$7a314a80$6e93df80$@gmail.com> <525C46BB.10601@cis-india.org> <20131015004942.B2B023F4BBB@a2knetwork.org> <525CD7B2.2020808@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <525D7858.7040507@softwarefreedom.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/15/2013 01:50 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > JFC Morfin [2013-10-14 20:49]: >> At 21:32 14/10/2013, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>> Do you have a link for this? >> >> The internet architecture has not been designed (it was a prototype) and >> reviewed for security (this belongs first to IRTF and IAB). > > This is true. But that doesn't answer my question about NSA weakening > IETF or other similar bodies. NSA has been shown to have meddled with > NIST processes (by introducing a PRNG called Dual EC DRBG in the NIST SP > 800-90A standard), but as far as I know no IETF/IRTF/IESG/IAB, etc. body > ever considered those. NIST and NSA are statutorily wedded to each > other: NIST is *required* under US law to work with the NSA in crypto > standards formulation. I am curious as to under what statute are NIST and NSA supposed to work together other than the general obligation of NIST's standard making process which is to be open to participation to all agencies of the Federal Government. AFAIK, Federal law and associated policy guidance has expressed a general preference for Federal agencies to rely on voluntary consensus standards, in lieu of government unique standards, through the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, which encourage agency staff to participate in standards-development activities led by the private sector, as appropriate but what has transpired post this is beyond my current knowledge. > > > > - -- 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSXXhWAAoJEEApaiiieuDsX8YQAJ8urq50QxocGI+4pJp4/TyE gtoaRVrzgM/ve7uVKChdZsw3v45zOREIbJKXsaZ46aRSddfS+OSILaJs7m7ZwrZ3 bFXKnm4oqi1yuCGhnxbffpi+8oE29rjkuWQDPH6Z3qIQ83xUJkKLan36HKJdEHTi 9t9Sixes1KR2oV0KwkCk7D3jq/etabSmPGsdxyDXAOGYc61K3e0JZpKaI0wElM+K M/ZHmKLtgKQf5GK3qvOaflX+NnxgbZ0UzZcTgyYqtwDbijeMG2znVTZ7QpIPRWdc GVN7XSqJWeheOJhNbk/nTqBg0Z+QaTrFlm9NqBPAeW7DO99qC/7N9gYzujErS12S vXbrDUGO2XTlBdFlhWZLES3yJrOMy+pPLFLai4Jk4dgaHwz9QYAy0OmWUk1zi/pn 4t45P2uBFI5hNQi4MuHWKXEVP3L5hj+wbt51xAl4piQ1Nl1656wRammsghy9ZJcp x+rHdP133S7dqUZLe+nJh926OSUKCT90EUk462VnnavbEt5SOvDwL0RsUSCHQrvo mfJJYUmsdiR0XflD6r8UyqFXwaF9IaxK71T++Y/3D1mGyUU8pFBx+sAUdlXfIL+Y 2KVjUurzldI23t4dND2SBuP3m0RnVCzfJ11sgO3bz/33VWulzIIoyIAYdP5zqplq FqZQe7trp1L4D5p+W6yI =1XTo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Oct 15 13:53:21 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:53:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <02a801cec9b3$c22f45d0$468dd170$@gmail.com> References: <02a801cec9b3$c22f45d0$468dd170$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Bill and Avri, > > Interesting arguments based on an assumption of significant USG Internet policy incoherence*, Well, Avri's statement that "NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals" doesn't necessarily translate into significant USG Internet policy incoherence. Different agencies, different missions, heretofore compatible from their standpoints. NTIA is dealing with root, IANA, ICANN contract. NSA is dealing with snooping, not really a names and numbers thing so much. The latter has made the former's work much more difficult and pushed it to accelerate efforts to figure out a way forward that would play (or at least be functionally sound and cause the least political opposition) both domestically and internationally. There's no way to know ex ante what path this will follow and whether a solution will be found or the thing crashes and burns, there are too many moving parts and cross-cutting pressures at work. Not an easy position to be in. Bill > and of course you may have a deeper insight into the behaviour of the USG than others but I'm seeing the following from this quite recent policy statement from the Obama Whitehouse: > > MAY 2011, Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World: INTERNATIONAL STR ATEGY FOR CYBERSPACE > http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf > > Strength at Home > > Ensuring the resilience of our networks and information systems requires collective and concerted national action that spans the whole of government, in collaboration with the private sector and individual citizens. > > The report goes on to outline the principles/strategy being promoted by the USG including matters of governance, internal and external security, infrastructure etc.etc. > > A quick read of this statement is interesting background to the discussions we are about to have in Bali. > > M > > *A bit surprising I would have thought given the recognition at least in the Executive Office of the long term significance of the Internet--"This world—cyberspace—is a world that we depend on every single day… Barack Obama > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:38 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? > > Hi > > On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions. > > None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives. > > And conversations with the folks involved. > > > If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals. > > If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another. > > I assume the latter. > > I don't think it's just an assumption. But there are of course internal debates and countervailing pressures, so this has to be done very carefully and in a somewhat evolutionary manner, recognizing the substantial domestic political constraints. It's not like the administration could be relishing the prospect of a campaign on Fox News etc. with the Tea Party screaming "Obama hands over the Internet", much less all the real power centers that will be nervous about a headlong dive into the unknown. So there's a lot that would have to be done to keep this on course, and alas NTIA staff cannot even legally respond to their email at the moment, much less engage in global discussion. > > > The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments. NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals. > > Fair to say, and worth remembering when making sweeping statements about this or any other government (see Wolfgang's recent note on endemic intra-ministerial fragmentation). > > > I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me. > > In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage. > > And one side seems increasingly inclined to understand the TOR a bit flexibly. > > > And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational. I think this is the case for Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits. > > Yes. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > > > I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. > > Not behind, but in the mix. > > 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: From Lea at gp-digital.org Fri Oct 4 05:44:46 2013 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 10:44:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, Byoung-il Oh and others, To substantiate the discussion below, find attached the most up-to-date draft of the set of principles being discussed in Seoul. The ‘principles’ are a set of articles taken from other documents. Most originate from the General Assembly (GGE refers to the Group of Governmental Experts which is housed within the first committee of the UNGA which deals with security) or the OECD. They will be included as part of the chairman’s report, which the organisers might ask attending governments to sign on to. For example, one of the principles in there is this: * State Sovereignty and international norms and principles that flow from sovereignty apply to State conduct of ICT-related activities, and to their jurisdiction over ICT infrastructure within their territory.（UN GGE Report 2013, Para 20) Interestingly (and somewhat ironically), though, given the closed process in which this document is being drafted, the document also quotes the following articles: * Stakeholders including business, civil society, the Internet technical community and academic institutions, make an essential contribution to the on-going development of the Internet and the enrichment of society using the Internet. (OECD Communique on Principles for Internet Policy-Making) * The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Government, the private sector, civil society, academic and technical communities and international organizations.(UN A/RES/67/195) Both the substance of these principles and the process around drafting them is something civil society should have a stance on. If the BB group could draft a joint statement to address civil society concerns around this document, a few of us who managed to get accredited (I am aware of four other CS people who are going) could aim to submit it to the governments while in Seoul. I think Parminder is right - we should pay closer attention to this and related processes. These UN/OECD source documents have not just appeared out of the blue - they have been drafted across many months by governments sitting in these forums, while going almost unnoticed in our circles. Seeing as internet governance is increasingly entering the field of high politics at the UNGA, and how the issue area is becoming an MFA agenda item (rather than just a telecom ministries’ issue), we could do worse than to start working of a strategy to engage in these forums and not just the ITU and WSIS+10-related events. Perhaps something to address at the BB session in Bali? Looking forward to taking this forward. Best, Lea From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 04 October 2013 08:35 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul I had previously cautioned that some kind of important "Seoul Principles' will be worked out at the conference. So, friends, it is in these rather tightly-controlled forums, designed and run by OECD countries (chiefly, the US and UK, in this case) where real global Internet governance is taking place. But, from the reactions that my post on this subject got a few days back, civil society seems still insistent on keeping its head tightly dug in the sand. And we want to pursue in full vigor the rather non-consequential events like WSIS plus 10 conference to be hosted by the ITU in April next..... (Remember the UNESCO's WSIS plus 10 event earlier this year!) Any reason, why we dont target events where the powerful OECD countries, otherwise civil society's comrades-in-arms on multistakeholderism, un-regulated, bottom-up Internet and so on, undertake real global IG, and only target genuinely multi-lateral forums, like those associated with the UN, where at least all countries are allowed to participate... And these UN forums are much much more open.... Look at the Seoul conference. It is not possible to even register and attend it in an unhindered manner for a civil society organisation, what to talk about substantially participating. And see how all the preparatory processes, and actual text negotiations is shrouded in so much secrecy. Compare it to the WSIS process, where any entity could get its inputs into the text at any stage, which was then openly negotiated over a vast screen... Friends, we have got something absolutely wrong here, and need to reassess our positions and priorities. As a communication rights activist said on another list recently, characterising the current situation about global Internet governance, 'an 'irrational normal' always exists in tension, awaiting its 'the emperor has no clothes' moment . It for the global IG civil society to make that call..... Or, in default, it can awaits its own 'the emperor has no clothes' moment. What I am asking here is - do we want to write to the Seoul conference organisers about how badly and wrongly organised their meeting it, and therefore what comes out of it simply has no legitimacy... And also, at the BestBits meeting in Bali, when we discuss global IG spaces, give due prominence to such rich countries run and controlled forums - and hit at the core of illegitimate power, which is civil society's prime business to do. By the way, it is one of the funniest statements to hear ------"Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which regard cyberspace as neutral,........... " Yes, neutral for completely unhindered transgressions and theft of other people's data..... Now we know what 'neutral' and 'unregulated' really is meant to mean.... Also perhaps why these countries were so much against mentioning the term 'security' in an international enforceable agreement like the ITRs.... They sure want to keep the Internet 'neutral', and civil society merrily follows the pipe piper's alluring tune... parminder On Friday 04 October 2013 08:04 AM, Byoung-il Oh wrote: Hi all, Several press reported that so called 'Seoul Principle' will be made as an outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/10/120_143618.html interview of Ambassador for International Security Affairs at S. Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/32042/inside-seoul-conference-cyberspace-2013 In other press, (which is in Korean, so rough translation) Republic of Korea as well as the United States and the United Kingdom, China and Hungary which had been under constant cyber attacks, lead this principle and other major 20 countries including France and Germany have agreed to it. Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which regard cyberspace as neutal, had show different view with China and Russia which see as national sovereignty, but all countries sympathized with general principle that cyberspace should be a peaceful place, so they are tring to complete 'Seoul Principle' through the intense debate. As of now, they are seeking agreement for the draft from all participants, and most major countries have agreed, so in the situation around 90~95% of the final stage." Best, Oh Byoungil -- [cid:~WRD001.jpg] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: ~WRD001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Principles - SEOUL.DOCX Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 33164 bytes Desc: Draft Principles - SEOUL.DOCX URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 03:33:59 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:33:59 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <"20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D"@a2 knetwork.org> <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> <5DFC1EEF-E693-4EF6-A1ED-2FFD17E826A6@me.com> <487CC18D-61A0-4F07-978F-8D8FCA18DA98@uzh.ch> <3815A123-CBA7-4539-AF51-837B6C3EC46F@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions. > > None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives. And conversations with the folks involved. > > If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals. > > If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another. > > I assume the latter. I don't think it's just an assumption. But there are of course internal debates and countervailing pressures, so this has to be done very carefully and in a somewhat evolutionary manner, recognizing the substantial domestic political constraints. It's not like the administration could be relishing the prospect of a campaign on Fox News etc. with the Tea Party screaming "Obama hands over the Internet", much less all the real power centers that will be nervous about a headlong dive into the unknown. So there's a lot that would have to be done to keep this on course, and alas NTIA staff cannot even legally respond to their email at the moment, much less engage in global discussion. > > The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments. NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals. Fair to say, and worth remembering when making sweeping statements about this or any other government (see Wolfgang's recent note on endemic intra-ministerial fragmentation). > > I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me. > > In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage. And one side seems increasingly inclined to understand the TOR a bit flexibly. > > And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational. I think this is the case for Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits. Yes. Best, Bill > > > > > On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: >> >>> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia. >> >> Not behind, but in the mix. >> >> Bill > From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu Tue Oct 15 20:49:47 2013 From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:49:47 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? Message-ID: Dear friends and colleagues, I just published in Global Voices a short article that might be in your interest titled: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? The piece is copied below and available at http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/10/15/brazil-the-new-internet-freedom-champion/ On Internet governance I also published recently (with Ellery Biddle in The Huffington Post): "US Power and the Not-So-Democratic Global Internet"available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eduardo-bertoni/us-power-and-global -internet_b_3909008.html Best, Eduardo Bertoni Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff recently delivered a speech before the United Nations General Assembly that was very well received among Internet freedom advocates. In her speech, President Rousseff criticized the United States for spying and also mentioned that 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.” Her words are, without a doubt, a very good starting point for Brazil if it wants to be the new international leader that guarantees Internet freedom. However, it is necessary that Brazil take concrete actions in support of Rousseff’s words. For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition, a group of governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send a positive message to the international community. Countries that join the coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other hand, other countries that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia, China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in the past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly, which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from its partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). Another action that Brazil could take to support the President’s speech is to implement domestic public policies and to push laws that guarantee freedom online, particularly freedom of expression. The situation in Brazil up to date is not encouraging. Reports by International NGOs –such as the recent Freedom on the Net report published by Freedom House that indicates that Brazil is a “partial free” country– or reports by private companies –such as the Google Transparency Report that shows that Brazil is one of the countries with the most requests to take down content from the Internet- shows that there is lots to do at the domestic level to improve Internet liberties. The bill known as the “marco civil” or “civil framework” for the Internet, that could improve the situation for better freedom online is still pending before the Brazilian Congress, though the President stated in her speech that she supports and will continue to support the initiative. Finally, Brazil should assure it would work for an Internet governance approach that will not damage Internet infrastructure, and more importantly, will not impose risks on basic human rights. Last week's announcement that Brazil will host a global Internet governance summit next year could be positive, but it is not yet clear what Brazil's position on this issue will be: Earlier this year, Brazil signed the ITU treaty in Dubai that was criticized by advocates and experts as a document that could undermine Internet freedom. Brazil should distance itself from these initiatives. Speeches delivered within the framework of inter-governmental organizations, like the UN, should be taken seriously. But while very important, they are only words if they are not followed by concrete actions in the right direction adopted by all branches of government. A true champion does not stop at words. *This article was authored by Eduardo Bertoni, Director of the CELE, the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression at University of Palermo School of Law in Argentina.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Oct 15 22:27:24 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:27:24 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > > For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition > , a group of governments > committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send a positive > message to the international community. Countries that join the > coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people > enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin > America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the > other hand, other countries that are not members of the coalition, > such as Russia, China and India, have taken steps in the wrong > direction. For example, in the past, they have presented draft > resolutions to the UN General assembly, which would have put in risk > Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition > would be a turning point and a step in the opposite direction, > demonstrating that it takes some distance from its partners in groups > such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, > Brazil and South Africa). > It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Wed Oct 16 01:13:58 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:13:58 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Media reporting a new "safe" email service being developed by Brazilians. Is it a step towards further balkanization of the Internet? Each county concerned about their cyber safety will be introducing such services? Will government then in any case take control of communication channels? Interesting times :) Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: Jeremy Malcolm Organization: Consumers International Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:27 AM To: Subject: Re: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > > > > > > For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition > , a group of governments committed > to advance Internet freedom, it would send a positive message to the > international community. Countries that join the coalition endorse a statement > supporting the principle that all people enjoy the same human rights online as > they do offline. From Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of > the coalition. On the other hand, other countries that are not members of the > coalition, such as Russia, China and India, have taken steps in the wrong > direction. For example, in the past, they have presented draft resolutions to > the UN General assembly, which would have put in risk Internet governance. For > Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a > step in the opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from > its partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and > IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). > > > > It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm. -- 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: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 16 03:32:56 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:32:56 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8E8E60C2-9E95-48C7-859A-EC1FD41E34DF@glocom.ac.jp> If the email service is interoperable, then no problem. If a walled garden (e.g. early AOL) then that's different. Somewhat related "Boom Triggered By NSA: German Email Services Report Surge in Demand" If they don't care about our rights, perhaps they'll care about our dollars. Adam On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Media reporting a new "safe" email service being developed by Brazilians. > > Is it a step towards further balkanization of the Internet? Each county concerned about their cyber safety will be introducing such services? > > Will government then in any case take control of communication channels? > > Interesting times :) > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Organization: Consumers International > Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:27 AM > To: > Subject: Re: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? > > On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition, a group of governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send a positive message to the international community. Countries that join the coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other hand, other countries that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia, China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in the past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly, which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from its partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >> > > It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm. > > -- > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 16 05:25:13 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:25:13 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] IETF Chair speaking on surveillance - RIPE mtg this week Message-ID: IETF chair Jari Arkko's presentation at the RIPE conference this week in Athens "Pervasive Monitoring and the Internet". Slides and video at: Among other things, discusses what the IETF's doing in response, vulnerability (or not, he thinks) of IETF standards, etc. from a slide titled "reactions" * Increased the need for more diverse Internet (more IXPs, cables, services), good! * Increased the calls for more nationally controlled Internets, bad! Adam From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 16 06:30:42 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:30:42 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants Message-ID: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> Thank you everyone for your overwhelming interest in the upcoming Best Bits meeting in Bali that begins this Saturday! This email is to give some logistical details about the event. We are now rather over-full for the space that we have (and the catering that we have paid for), so please no more registrations from now on, except for remote participants. The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more. One of the important (and distinctive) things about Best Bits is that we want the meeting to produce concrete outcomes. Thus every session has a series of planned output documents or other deliverables that we aim to produce. Please take a look at these and come prepared to contribute productively and supportively. Where possible, work has already begun online. Links to working drafts and background documents are available under the "Papers" heading on the event page , as well as under the tab "Background papers". Please read these in advance, and check for new additions as Saturday approaches. You can also upload your own background papers - just click the new "Upload" link near the top of the page. The meeting venue is the Mantra Nusa Dua hotel on Jalan Raya Nusa Dua Selatan, Sawangan, Bali. The official taxi counter is located outside the arrivals hall (exit arrivals turn right). You should be paying about 95,000 rupiah to get to the hotel. Lunches and snacks during the event will be catered, with thanks to those who contributed money to make this possible. After we wrap on Sunday, we have a joint dinner with folks from the Web We Want initiative at the Nusa Dua Beach Grill . It is a private buffet at own expense, and transport will be provided. Please bring 200,000 rupiah in cash for your meal (this is about USD$17.60). If you will be at Best Bits and *don't* intend to join us at the dinner (but please do!), then let me know. If you are a member of the Facebook or Google+ social networks the event is being shared there, and we are also on Twitter . The event itself will also be streamed on our website (though some sensitive discussions might be closed off - the openness of our discussions is itself one of the items for discussion). Finally if you are not on the main Best Bits mailing list (this seems to apply to 26 of you, who are bcc'd) please join as list membership is an indispensable part of participation in the Best Bits network. If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to tell me or another member of the interim steering committee. For those who will be in Bali we look forward to seeing you soon! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 16 08:29:23 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:29:23 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <525E86A3.309@cafonso.ca> Grande Shahzad, Behind the misinformed headlines on this: no big deal and I was taken a bit by surprise as I understand they should have done this a while ago. Serpro, the state company in charge of data processing and data transmission for all federal government services, hosts most federal e-gov services in Brazil. This is a large company which, among other activities, led the deployment of free and open source software systems in e-gov here. That our adoption of FOSS was not as extensive as we expected is not the fault of Serpro. They are preparing to replace all gov email systems with a large secure email service entirely based on FOSS. This will mean, among other things, dropping all Microsoft Exchange contracts several gov agencies have been using, and saving millions in licensing. The system of course will be encrypted (Serpro is one of the authorized e-certificate issuers for the Brazilian Public Key Infrastructure system). As I said, no big deal -- except that the system will be indeed a big one due to our size, and one of the challenges in my view is training of public servants in the use of encrypted email. As to the gov "taking control of all comm channels", and again behind the misinformed headlines: there is another state company, Telebras, running fiber throughout Brazil and associating itself with international partners in launching sub cables to Europe, Africa and Asia, in order to reduce dependency on international Internet traffic going through the USA (nearly 90% of our BR-Europe traffic goes through Uncle Sam now, for example), as well as launching a satellite (currently even our military have to use foreign-owned satellites) jointly developed by Telebras and Embraer. Telebras is central to the National Broadband Plan (PNBL) and is suffering from lack of funds -- in part due to pressure from the "quintet" of transnational telcos who control nearly all the backbones in Brazil (TIM, Telefónica, GVT/Vivendi, Oi/Portugal Telecom, Claro). The Telebras fiber backbone has two objectives: providing points of presence in the municipalities which the "market" (the quintet) is not interested in (we have 5.565 municipalities), and provide secure communications infrastructure for gov services. Interesting times indeed! :) fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/16/2013 02:13 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Media reporting a new "safe" email service being developed by Brazilians. > > Is it a step towards further balkanization of the Internet? Each county > concerned about their cyber safety will be introducing such services? > > Will government then in any case take control of communication channels? > > Interesting times :) > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > > Organization: Consumers International > Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:27 AM > To: > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? > > On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >> >> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition >> , a group of governments >> committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send a positive >> message to the international community. Countries that join the >> coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people >> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin >> America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the >> other hand, other countries that are not members of the coalition, >> such as Russia, China and India, have taken steps in the wrong >> direction. For example, in the past, they have presented draft >> resolutions to the UN General assembly, which would have put in risk >> Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition >> would be a turning point and a step in the opposite direction, >> demonstrating that it takes some distance from its partners in groups >> such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, >> Brazil and South Africa). >> > > It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of > India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the > Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a > full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the > "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA > revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to > take in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance > taken by the FOC states. Hmm. > > -- > > *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 valeriab at apc.org Wed Oct 16 08:36:54 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 07:36:54 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] APC's priorities for IGF 2013 Message-ID: <71C01C8C-AA97-4865-8952-3B516E498F7C@apc.org> Dear all, The document which highlights APC's priorities and main activities for the 2013 IGF is available at http://www.apc.org/en/node/18615/ Your comments are welcome. Best, Valeria ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 16 08:47:51 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:47:51 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] APC's priorities for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: <71C01C8C-AA97-4865-8952-3B516E498F7C@apc.org> References: <71C01C8C-AA97-4865-8952-3B516E498F7C@apc.org> Message-ID: <525E8AF7.6010200@cafonso.ca> Excellent reference of issues for all, apc-ers or no apc-ers! --c.a. On 10/16/2013 09:36 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Dear all, > > The document which highlights APC's priorities and main activities for > the 2013 IGF is available at http://www.apc.org/en/node/18615/ > > Your comments are welcome. > > Best, > > Valeria > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > From anne at webfoundation.org Fri Oct 4 09:21:48 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:21:48 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance: not just a US issue Message-ID: Hi all Yet more evidence (this time from South Africa) that governments beyond the US are using technology to escalate surveillance of civilians, and for their own dubious reasons as well as to cooperate with the Americans. Full disclosure: the author is my partner. Cheers Anne http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2013/10/04/surveillance-may-turn-many-of-us-into-enemies Surveillance may turn many of us into ‘enemies’ BY ANTHONY BUTLER, 04 OCTOBER 2013, 05:51 SOUTH Africa’s intelligence operatives often appear hopelessly inept. But new technologies are empowering even the most incompetent spooks. Revelations by the WikiLeaks "Spy Files" project and whistle-blower Edward Snowden point to a large escalation in citizen surveillance. In South Africa, crime intelligence and private investigators routinely circumvent the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act to access individual citizens’ e-mails and phone calls. Targets can simply be added to legitimate surveillance projects. Even more concerning is the likelihood that there is already systematic blanket surveillance by the state. The Citizen Lab at Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs recently revealed that FinSpy software is hosted by one or more South African computers, almost certainly within the government. FinSpy inserts "trojans" onto target computers and cellphones, allowing remote surveillance of keystrokes, passwords, text messages, e-mails and voice data. It can even turn a cellphone into a microphone to eavesdrop on private conversations (which explains some politicians’ unnerving habit of removing the batteries from their phones). Huawei Technologies, the world’s second-biggest telecommunications company, is a recent investor in South Africa. According to one assessment in Foreign Affairs magazine, Huawei is a Chinese intelligence agency "masquerading as a tech business". Using software developed for domestic repression, it could allegedly supply passive surveillance capability to a friendly ruling party. A much smaller local company, VASTech, has been a focus of WikiLeaks’ attention. The Wall Street Journal revealed in 2011 that the Stellenbosch-based firm’s systems helped the Gadaffi regime monitor millions of mobile and landline calls. This technology was also reportedly sold to the Mubarak state. WikiLeaks-hosted company documents show that VASTech’s Zebra system can monitor 20-million voice channels simultaneously. Such blanket interception is complemented by archiving power that allows agents to "backtrack and retrieve all the communications of suspects prior to an incident". Network analysis permits the identification of "key relationships between stakeholders" and lays bare "the structure and operation of syndicate networks". Even anonymous cellphones are no defence against Zebra: it uses "speaker identification" technology to "reveal unknown numbers and new mobile devices used by targets". VASTech describes surveillance targets as "criminals and enemies of the public". But it is officials in state agencies, and not software suppliers, who decide how technology is used. Given that the state’s national interception centre probably possesses such instruments, can citizens be confident that intrastate oversight mechanisms are effective? Drug-smuggling, xenophobia, illicit commerce, and human trafficking, among many other matters, are routinely touted as "threats to national security". This could license the surveillance of a vast swathe of commercial entities and citizens. Surveillance systems are excellent instruments for the mapping of internal political party factions. It is possible to take a player in national, provincial or local politics, reconstruct his "collaboration networks", and eavesdrop on his archived conversations. There is nothing to prevent such technology being used against recalcitrant trade unionists — especially when, as State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele has observed, so much industrial action is "illegal". The KwaZulu-Natal police’s Lt-Gen Solomon Makgale made the insightful observation this week that service delivery protesters are also criminals. A protest, he noted, "stops being a protest when a crime is committed … if you are impeding the flow of traffic, then obviously you’ll be in conflict with the law". South Africa is experiencing a rapid expansion in the reach and potential power of state surveillance. It is unclear how to prevent what may become an equally rapid rise in the number of citizens defined by state agencies as "enemies of the public". • *Butler teaches politics at the University of Cape Town.* -- 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: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Oct 16 08:51:07 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:51:07 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks for all the work Jeremy – be great to see everyone! Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at gp-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Wednesday, 16 October 2013 11:30 To: "" > Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants Thank you everyone for your overwhelming interest in the upcoming Best Bits meeting in Bali that begins this Saturday! This email is to give some logistical details about the event. We are now rather over-full for the space that we have (and the catering that we have paid for), so please no more registrations from now on, except for remote participants. The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more. One of the important (and distinctive) things about Best Bits is that we want the meeting to produce concrete outcomes. Thus every session has a series of planned output documents or other deliverables that we aim to produce. Please take a look at these and come prepared to contribute productively and supportively. Where possible, work has already begun online. Links to working drafts and background documents are available under the "Papers" heading on the event page, as well as under the tab "Background papers". Please read these in advance, and check for new additions as Saturday approaches. You can also upload your own background papers - just click the new "Upload" link near the top of the page. The meeting venue is the Mantra Nusa Dua hotel on Jalan Raya Nusa Dua Selatan, Sawangan, Bali. The official taxi counter is located outside the arrivals hall (exit arrivals turn right). You should be paying about 95,000 rupiah to get to the hotel. Lunches and snacks during the event will be catered, with thanks to those who contributed money to make this possible. After we wrap on Sunday, we have a joint dinner with folks from the Web We Want initiative at the Nusa Dua Beach Grill. It is a private buffet at own expense, and transport will be provided. Please bring 200,000 rupiah in cash for your meal (this is about USD$17.60). If you will be at Best Bits and don't intend to join us at the dinner (but please do!), then let me know. If you are a member of the Facebook or Google+ social networks the event is being shared there, and we are also on Twitter. The event itself will also be streamed on our website (though some sensitive discussions might be closed off - the openness of our discussions is itself one of the items for discussion). Finally if you are not on the main Best Bits mailing list (this seems to apply to 26 of you, who are bcc'd) please join as list membership is an indispensable part of participation in the Best Bits network. If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to tell me or another member of the interim steering committee. For those who will be in Bali we look forward to seeing you soon! -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 09:29:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:29:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy. That is great work. As mentioned before, it would be interesting to discuss how we can contribute more directly to ICANN strategic planning taking into consideration the recent developments involving Brazil. There are opportunities for CS engagement - even more now that the CS representatives have been elected. Details at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09oct13-en.htm "To provide more opportunity for community consideration and public comment on a draft ICANN Vision and 5-year StrategicPlan, the development schedule has been extended to accommodate *two rounds of online public input, *and community discussions at the ICANN Buenos Aires (November 2013) and Singapore (March 2014) meetings." On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Thank you everyone for your overwhelming interest in the upcoming Best > Bits meeting in Bali that begins this Saturday! This email is to give some > logistical details about the event. We are now rather over-full for the > space that we have (and the catering that we have paid for), so please no > more registrations from now on, except for remote participants. > > The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, > covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the > moment. Although the agenda (particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover > mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of > Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at > WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more. > > One of the important (and distinctive) things about Best Bits is that we > want the meeting to produce concrete outcomes. Thus every session has a > series of planned output documents or other deliverables that we aim to > produce. Please take a look at these and come prepared to contribute > productively and supportively. > > Where possible, work has already begun online. Links to working drafts > and background documents are available under the "Papers" heading on the event > page , as well as under the tab > "Background papers". Please read these in advance, and check for new > additions as Saturday approaches. You can also upload your own background > papers - just click the new "Upload" link near the top of the page. > > The meeting venue is the Mantra Nusa Dua hotel on Jalan Raya Nusa Dua > Selatan, Sawangan, Bali. The official taxi counter is located outside the > arrivals hall (exit arrivals turn right). You should be paying about 95,000 > rupiah to get to the hotel. Lunches and snacks during the event will be > catered, with thanks to those who contributed money to make this possible. > > After we wrap on Sunday, we have a joint dinner with folks from the Web We > Want initiative at the Nusa Dua Beach Grill. > It is a private buffet at own expense, and transport will be provided. > Please bring 200,000 rupiah in cash for your meal (this is about > USD$17.60). If you will be at Best Bits and *don't* intend to join us at > the dinner (but please do!), then let me know. > > If you are a member of the Facebookor > Google+ social networks the event is being shared there, and we are also on > Twitter . The event itself will also be streamed > on our website (though some sensitive > discussions might be closed off - the openness of our discussions is itself > one of the items for discussion). > > Finally if you are not on the main Best Bits mailing list (this seems to > apply to 26 of you, who are bcc'd) please joinas list membership is an indispensable part of participation in the Best > Bits network. > > If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to tell me or > another member of the interim steering committee. For those who will be in > Bali we look forward to seeing you soon! > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > 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. > -- *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: From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 10:24:38 2013 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:54:38 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> Message-ID: > > We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the Freedom > Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point > lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the "Internet > freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is > quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the > status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications”) in the end. It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that her concern seems to be that there should be some accountability with respect to human rights, I sympathise. The Indian government seems to be in I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite correctly that while everybody else was being told off for human rights violations, the countries telling them off were also committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow justify another's (I still would not support the resolution that India presented to the UN last year), I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing as the best model. I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely in terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the ITRs debates - that many were stepping away from the actual text and merely pointing out who was signing as an argument for not signing. Isn't it better to just discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and determine on that basis whether it is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? Best, Chinmayi On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > > For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition, > a group of governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send > a positive message to the international community. Countries that join the > coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people > enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin America, > only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other hand, > other countries that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia, > China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in > the past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly, > which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the > Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the > opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from its > partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and > IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). > > > It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of > India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the > Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a > full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the > "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA > revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take > in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by > the FOC states. Hmm. > > -- > > *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: From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 16 10:25:09 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 07:25:09 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance) As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone is using the term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with some clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it were to be defined from the civil society perspective) In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common purpose? - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all interested parties? - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties? - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide consideration of all inputs/views? - Respect for all participants involved? If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term "multi-stakeholder" (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid set of principles regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your present plans or goals for the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired. Thanks! /John Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via multi-stakeholder processes (unless one credits various portions of my consciousness with independent stakeholder status... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 16 10:47:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:17:18 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> Message-ID: <525EA6F6.40504@itforchange.net> Hi John The kind of issues that you raise are among the ones that will be discussed. So we take your input into the session.. However, all the points that you mention are such that everyone here will agree should be part of all policy making processes.. But the real issue, in my view, lies elsewhere. What is the role of non gov participants - especially but not only private companies - in situations where actual public policy making is involved - real public policy which directly affects people's important interests, and somewhere/ somehow also involves use of corecive force in some way or the other. Say, if net neutrality regulation is being developed in a country, is it necessary that big telco business should be an 'equal' part of that decision, and perhaps have some kind of veto over that decision. Same for privacy regulation, or, to go further, universal access policies, consumer protection laws and so on.. parminder On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:55 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day >> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet >> policy issues of the moment. Although theagenda >> (particularly for Day 1 morning) is >> still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the >> Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, >> Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more > > I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" > (presumably with > respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance) > > As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone > is using the > term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with > some > clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it > were to be defined > from the civil society perspective) > > In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: > > - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common > purpose? > > - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all > interested parties? > > - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties? > > - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide > consideration of all inputs/views? > > - Respect for all participants involved? > > If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term > "multi-stakeholder" > (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, > although the term > does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid > set of principles > regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your > present plans or goals for > the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired. > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via > multi-stakeholder > processes (unless one credits various portions of > my consciousness > with independent stakeholder status... ;-) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 16 11:02:05 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:32:05 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > > We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the > Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is > ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. > Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious > blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the > "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist > position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. > > > I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not > really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These > Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of > telecommunications”) in the end. > > It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN > oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that her > concern seems to be that there should be some accountability with > respect to human rights, I sympathise. The Indian government seems to > be in I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite correctly that while > everybody else was being told off for human rights violations, the > countries telling them off were also committing huge violations. While > I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that one nation's human > rights violations somehow justify another's (I still would not support > the resolution that India presented to the UN last year), Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human rights violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference between US violating rights of people in a situation where it admits of no avenues of recourse, even at a theoretical -political level, and when such things happen within a political system which has its dynamics that can be engaged to avoid or reduce such violation. CIRP like global governance proposals are about having a global political regime within which then efforts can be made to fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights violation against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative different kind, from the very important issue of domestic surveillances that we all struggle against. > I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing as > the best model. Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what 'should be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a thing. Best , parminder > > I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely in > terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the ITRs > debates - that many were stepping away from the actual text and merely > pointing out who was signing as an argument for not signing. Isn't it > better to just discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and > determine on that basis whether it is necessary, helpful or terrible > to subscribe to them? > > Best, > Chinmayi > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >> >> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition >> , a group of >> governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send >> a positive message to the international community. Countries that >> join the coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle >> that all people enjoy the same human rights online as they do >> offline. From Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part >> of the coalition. On the other hand, other countries that are not >> members of the coalition, such as Russia, China and India, have >> taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in the past, >> they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly, >> which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, >> joining the Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and >> a step in the opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes >> some distance from its partners in groups such as the BRIC >> (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and >> South Africa). >> > > It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective > of India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a > member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say > Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower than India in the > Freedom House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan > has suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite > debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to > the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by the FOC > states. Hmm. > > -- > > *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: From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 11:22:33 2013 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:52:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when states commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the best track record when it comes to making itself accountable before international human rights institutions for its domestic policies (neither incidentally has the US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are being built in India and that there has been quite a lot of resistance to government transparency when it comes to blocking or interception (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as justification for domestic policy). I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as President Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states to be accountable to individuals. I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a surveillance order if you never find out about it. Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a system in which it is accountable to individuals in an international human rights forum. See you at the IGF :) Chinmayi On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > > We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the Freedom >> Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point >> lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the "Internet >> freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is >> quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the >> status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. > > > I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not really > undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These Regulations do > not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications”) in the end. > > It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN > oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that her concern > seems to be that there should be some accountability with respect to human > rights, I sympathise. The Indian government seems to be in I-told-you-so > mode now, pointing out quite correctly that while everybody else was being > told off for human rights violations, the countries telling them off were > also committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to the > idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow justify another's (I > still would not support the resolution that India presented to the UN last > year), > > > Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human rights > violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference between US > violating rights of people in a situation where it admits of no avenues of > recourse, even at a theoretical -political level, and when such things > happen within a political system which has its dynamics that can be engaged > to avoid or reduce such violation. CIRP like global governance proposals > are about having a global political regime within which then efforts can be > made to fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political > system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights violation > against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative different kind, > from the very important issue of domestic surveillances that we all > struggle against. > > I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing as > the best model. > > > Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what 'should > be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a thing. > > Best , parminder > > > I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely in terms > of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the ITRs debates - > that many were stepping away from the actual text and merely pointing out > who was signing as an argument for not signing. Isn't it better to just > discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and determine on that > basis whether it is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? > > Best, > Chinmayi > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >> >> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition, >> a group of governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send >> a positive message to the international community. Countries that join the >> coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people >> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin America, >> only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other hand, >> other countries that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia, >> China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in >> the past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly, >> which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the >> Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the >> opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from its >> partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and >> IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >> >> >> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of >> India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the >> Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a >> full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA >> revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take >> in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by >> the FOC states. Hmm. >> >> -- >> >> *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: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Oct 16 12:04:24 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:34:24 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Also, on the suggestion for Brazil to join the Freedom Online Coalition as they would then have to endorse a 'statement supporting the principle that all people enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline': how is this any different from Rousseff making her speech at the UN and now seemingly starting to act on it by agreeing to host the proposed April meeting? I don't quite see how the former sends a more positive signal to the international community than the latter, especially since it is eminently clear now that governments in the FOC also have not lived by what they endorsed. And the problems aren't new of course: even earlier there were sufficient isuses - what about the ACTA proposal, for example? Because of this ambiguity, I have never thought that it was a loss that India didn't join the FOC. India did sign the UNHRC resolution that states rights apply online as offline, and I think it is very important that it did so. But as the government continues to struggle with resolving a whole bunch of issues on the ground, not making an additional commitment by joining the FOC somehow seemed more honest. Best, Anja On 16 October 2013 20:52, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as offering > much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when states commit > human rights violations. India has not exactly had the best track record > when it comes to making itself accountable before international human > rights institutions for its domestic policies (neither incidentally has the > US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are being > built in India and that there has been quite a lot of resistance to > government transparency when it comes to blocking or interception (it is in > this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as justification > for domestic policy). I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the > same light as President Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call > for states to be accountable to individuals. > > I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to > surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a surveillance > order if you never find out about it. > > Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables > individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the > International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not > really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a system in > which it is accountable to individuals in an international human rights > forum. > > See you at the IGF :) > Chinmayi > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >> >> We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the >>> Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a >>> full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >>> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA >>> revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take >>> in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by >>> the FOC states. >> >> >> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not >> really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These >> Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of >> telecommunications”) in the end. >> >> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN >> oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that her concern >> seems to be that there should be some accountability with respect to human >> rights, I sympathise. The Indian government seems to be in I-told-you-so >> mode now, pointing out quite correctly that while everybody else was being >> told off for human rights violations, the countries telling them off were >> also committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to the >> idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow justify another's (I >> still would not support the resolution that India presented to the UN last >> year), >> >> >> Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human rights >> violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference between US >> violating rights of people in a situation where it admits of no avenues of >> recourse, even at a theoretical -political level, and when such things >> happen within a political system which has its dynamics that can be engaged >> to avoid or reduce such violation. CIRP like global governance proposals >> are about having a global political regime within which then efforts can be >> made to fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political >> system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights violation >> against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative different kind, >> from the very important issue of domestic surveillances that we all >> struggle against. >> >> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing as >> the best model. >> >> >> Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what 'should >> be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a thing. >> >> Best , parminder >> >> >> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely in >> terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the ITRs debates >> - that many were stepping away from the actual text and merely pointing out >> who was signing as an argument for not signing. Isn't it better to just >> discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and determine on that >> basis whether it is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? >> >> Best, >> Chinmayi >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>> >>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition, >>> a group of governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send >>> a positive message to the international community. Countries that join the >>> coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people >>> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin America, >>> only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other hand, >>> other countries that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia, >>> China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in >>> the past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly, >>> which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the >>> Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the >>> opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from its >>> partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and >>> IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >>> >>> >>> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of >>> India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the >>> Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a >>> full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >>> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA >>> revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take >>> in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by >>> the FOC states. Hmm. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *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. >>> >> >> >> > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 13:25:59 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:25:59 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> Message-ID: <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> Very good start John but could I add a comment I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to describe a process there is an implicit assumption of trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to be a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties -- no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only specific accountability is what they are presenting through their contribution to the MS process itself. Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; that various of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) as "stakeholders". That being the case what would/could an effective MS process look like? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:25 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance) As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone is using the term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with some clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it were to be defined from the civil society perspective) In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common purpose? - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all interested parties? - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties? - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide consideration of all inputs/views? - Respect for all participants involved? If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term "multi-stakeholder" (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid set of principles regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your present plans or goals for the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired. Thanks! /John Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via multi-stakeholder processes (unless one credits various portions of my consciousness with independent stakeholder status... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 16 15:01:02 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:01:02 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Very good start John but could I add a comment… Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just my offhand thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this topic. I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical community have some significant common ground in terms of belief in multi-stakeholder principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common definition (if that is achievable.) > I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to describe a process there is an implicit assumption of trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to be a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties -- no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only specific accountability is what they are presenting through their contribution to the MS process itself. I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an agenda; it may or may be "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, but presumably there is still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make progress, yes? For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a meeting, I've pretty much got to carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these may be 'hidden' to anyone who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the Montevideo Statement on Future of Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply lack of understanding of common goals that might already exist. The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective goal or common purpose, that should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place, particularly if the time is taken to find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which reduces the possibility of working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs. > Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) as "stakeholders". I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which is not a situation of unknown motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or subterfuge by a participant); my only advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting views and positions so that such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time. For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services offered by ARIN are set by proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the greater Internet community but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP address policy, which we believe should be open to all and whose processes should subject to widespread accountability/oversight to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a discussion with civil society for me to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference that ARIN is wonderful and completely guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be shown to be disingenuous given existing documentation and other public statements showing that we strongly feel that our members (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that we offer and fees that we charge. My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that getting participants to speak up and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over time) provide some protection against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a suggestion on this; I'm afraid that defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous intentionally bad actors may not be readily achievable. /John Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at your own risk. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 4 10:01:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:01:42 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <055901cec10a$48dd27d0$da977770$@gmail.com> +1 M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Lea Kaspar Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:45 AM To: parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul Hi Parminder, Byoung-il Oh and others, To substantiate the discussion below, find attached the most up-to-date draft of the set of principles being discussed in Seoul. The ‘principles’ are a set of articles taken from other documents. Most originate from the General Assembly (GGE refers to the Group of Governmental Experts which is housed within the first committee of the UNGA which deals with security) or the OECD. They will be included as part of the chairman’s report, which the organisers might ask attending governments to sign on to. For example, one of the principles in there is this: ・ State Sovereignty and international norms and principles that flow from sovereignty apply to State conduct of ICT-related activities, and to their jurisdiction over ICT infrastructure within their territory.（UN GGE Report 2013, Para 20) Interestingly (and somewhat ironically), though, given the closed process in which this document is being drafted, the document also quotes the following articles: ・ Stakeholders including business, civil society, the Internet technical community and academic institutions, make an essential contribution to the on-going development of the Internet and the enrichment of society using the Internet. (OECD Communique on Principles for Internet Policy-Making) ・ The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Government, the private sector, civil society, academic and technical communities and international organizations.(UN A/RES/67/195) Both the substance of these principles and the process around drafting them is something civil society should have a stance on. If the BB group could draft a joint statement to address civil society concerns around this document, a few of us who managed to get accredited (I am aware of four other CS people who are going) could aim to submit it to the governments while in Seoul. I think Parminder is right - we should pay closer attention to this and related processes. These UN/OECD source documents have not just appeared out of the blue - they have been drafted across many months by governments sitting in these forums, while going almost unnoticed in our circles. Seeing as internet governance is increasingly entering the field of high politics at the UNGA, and how the issue area is becoming an MFA agenda item (rather than just a telecom ministries’ issue), we could do worse than to start working of a strategy to engage in these forums and not just the ITU and WSIS+10-related events. Perhaps something to address at the BB session in Bali? Looking forward to taking this forward. Best, Lea From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 04 October 2013 08:35 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul I had previously cautioned that some kind of important "Seoul Principles' will be worked out at the conference. So, friends, it is in these rather tightly-controlled forums, designed and run by OECD countries (chiefly, the US and UK, in this case) where real global Internet governance is taking place. But, from the reactions that my post on this subject got a few days back, civil society seems still insistent on keeping its head tightly dug in the sand. And we want to pursue in full vigor the rather non-consequential events like WSIS plus 10 conference to be hosted by the ITU in April next..... (Remember the UNESCO's WSIS plus 10 event earlier this year!) Any reason, why we dont target events where the powerful OECD countries, otherwise civil society's comrades-in-arms on multistakeholderism, un-regulated, bottom-up Internet and so on, undertake real global IG, and only target genuinely multi-lateral forums, like those associated with the UN, where at least all countries are allowed to participate... And these UN forums are much much more open.... Look at the Seoul conference. It is not possible to even register and attend it in an unhindered manner for a civil society organisation, what to talk about substantially participating. And see how all the preparatory processes, and actual text negotiations is shrouded in so much secrecy. Compare it to the WSIS process, where any entity could get its inputs into the text at any stage, which was then openly negotiated over a vast screen... Friends, we have got something absolutely wrong here, and need to reassess our positions and priorities. As a communication rights activist said on another list recently, characterising the current situation about global Internet governance, 'an 'irrational normal' always exists in tension, awaiting its 'the emperor has no clothes' moment . It for the global IG civil society to make that call..... Or, in default, it can awaits its own 'the emperor has no clothes' moment. What I am asking here is - do we want to write to the Seoul conference organisers about how badly and wrongly organised their meeting it, and therefore what comes out of it simply has no legitimacy... And also, at the BestBits meeting in Bali, when we discuss global IG spaces, give due prominence to such rich countries run and controlled forums - and hit at the core of illegitimate power, which is civil society's prime business to do. By the way, it is one of the funniest statements to hear ------"Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which regard cyberspace as neutral,........... " Yes, neutral for completely unhindered transgressions and theft of other people's data..... Now we know what 'neutral' and 'unregulated' really is meant to mean.... Also perhaps why these countries were so much against mentioning the term 'security' in an international enforceable agreement like the ITRs.... They sure want to keep the Internet 'neutral', and civil society merrily follows the pipe piper's alluring tune... parminder On Friday 04 October 2013 08:04 AM, Byoung-il Oh wrote: Hi all, Several press reported that so called 'Seoul Principle' will be made as an outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/10/120_143618.html interview of Ambassador for International Security Affairs at S. Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/32042/inside-seoul-conference-cyberspace-2 013 In other press, (which is in Korean, so rough translation) Republic of Korea as well as the United States and the United Kingdom, China and Hungary which had been under constant cyber attacks, lead this principle and other major 20 countries including France and Germany have agreed to it. Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which regard cyberspace as neutal, had show different view with China and Russia which see as national sovereignty, but all countries sympathized with general principle that cyberspace should be a peaceful place, so they are tring to complete 'Seoul Principle' through the intense debate. As of now, they are seeking agreement for the draft from all participants, and most major countries have agreed, so in the situation around 90~95% of the final stage. " Best, Oh Byoungil -- Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joy at apc.org Wed Oct 16 16:34:24 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:34:24 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <525EF850.2070209@apc.org> Hi all - since Parminder and I are facilitating this opening session and the definitions discussion, I think it would be useful to collate some of these ideas, with your permission :-) If others have ideas or suggestions they would like to share beforehand, please do so, I have started a pirate pad for this purpose: http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ Kind regards Joy Liddicoat On 17/10/2013 8:01 a.m., John Curran wrote: > On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> Very good start John but could I add a comment… > > Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just my > offhand > thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this topic. > > I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical > community > have some significant common ground in terms of belief in > multi-stakeholder > principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common > definition (if > that is achievable.) > >> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define >> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to >> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of trustworthiness >> of the various parties. That is, there seems to be a belief >> in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties -- no hidden >> motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or financial (or >> other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an expectation that >> people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say they are and that >> their involvement is transparent and their only specific >> accountability is what they are presenting through their contribution >> to the MS process itself. > > > > I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an > agenda; it may or may be > "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, but > presumably there is > still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make > progress, yes? > For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a meeting, > I've pretty much got to > carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these > may be 'hidden' to anyone > who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the > Montevideo Statement on Future of > Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply lack > of understanding of common > goals that might already exist. > > The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective goal > or common purpose, that > should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place, > particularly if the time is taken to > find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which > reduces the possibility of > working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs. > >> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition >> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the >> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; >> thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's >> terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but >> may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, >> group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it >> may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common >> purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some >> circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could >> exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) >> as "stakeholders". > > I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which is > not a situation of unknown > motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or subterfuge > by a participant); my only > advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting > views and positions so that > such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time. > > For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services > offered by ARIN are set by > proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the > greater Internet community > but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP > address policy, which we believe > should be open to all and whose processes should subject to widespread > accountability/oversight > to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a > discussion with civil society for me > to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference that > ARIN is wonderful and completely > guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be > shown to be disingenuous given > existing documentation and other public statements showing that we > strongly feel that our members > (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that we > offer and fees that we charge. > My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that > getting participants to speak up > and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might > (over time) provide some protection > against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a > suggestion on this; I'm afraid that > defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous > intentionally bad actors may > not be readily achievable. > > /John > > Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at your own > risk. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Wed Oct 16 17:50:55 2013 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 01:50:55 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1CE760EA-3246-46A3-A883-0ADB99C51AE3@me.com> Dears, I'm on the way for Bali now, arriving tomorrow night and I will stay on Mercur Nusa Dua, someone will stay on this hotel or near then? If ok, let's deal to go togheter to Bestbits meetings? _ João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 16/10/2013, às 14:30, Jeremy Malcolm escreveu: > > Thank you everyone for your overwhelming interest in the upcoming Best Bits meeting in Bali that begins this Saturday! This email is to give some logistical details about the event. We are now rather over-full for the space that we have (and the catering that we have paid for), so please no more registrations from now on, except for remote participants. > > The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more. > > One of the important (and distinctive) things about Best Bits is that we want the meeting to produce concrete outcomes. Thus every session has a series of planned output documents or other deliverables that we aim to produce. Please take a look at these and come prepared to contribute productively and supportively. > > Where possible, work has already begun online. Links to working drafts and background documents are available under the "Papers" heading on the event page, as well as under the tab "Background papers". Please read these in advance, and check for new additions as Saturday approaches. You can also upload your own background papers - just click the new "Upload" link near the top of the page. > > The meeting venue is the Mantra Nusa Dua hotel on Jalan Raya Nusa Dua Selatan, Sawangan, Bali. The official taxi counter is located outside the arrivals hall (exit arrivals turn right). You should be paying about 95,000 rupiah to get to the hotel. Lunches and snacks during the event will be catered, with thanks to those who contributed money to make this possible. > > After we wrap on Sunday, we have a joint dinner with folks from the Web We Want initiative at the Nusa Dua Beach Grill. It is a private buffet at own expense, and transport will be provided. Please bring 200,000 rupiah in cash for your meal (this is about USD$17.60). If you will be at Best Bits and don't intend to join us at the dinner (but please do!), then let me know. > > If you are a member of the Facebook or Google+ social networks the event is being shared there, and we are also on Twitter. The event itself will also be streamed on our website (though some sensitive discussions might be closed off - the openness of our discussions is itself one of the items for discussion). > > Finally if you are not on the main Best Bits mailing list (this seems to apply to 26 of you, who are bcc'd) please join as list membership is an indispensable part of participation in the Best Bits network. > > If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to tell me or another member of the interim steering committee. For those who will be in Bali we look forward to seeing you soon! > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 16 19:10:00 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 01:10:00 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participan In-Reply-To: <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525EF850.2070209@apc.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525EF850.2070209@apc.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org Wed Oct 16 11:20:09 2013 From: bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> Message-ID: Hello, On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including CS > proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both President > Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. > > Apologies for the cross-post. I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move ICANN away from unilateral oversight: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> > I do want to >> > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and >> > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. >> >> *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. >> >> > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points >> > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the consensus >> > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have expressed >> > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I think it >> > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been >> > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. >> >> The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”. >> That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are strongly >> in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain >> opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend political >> capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a decision >> in favor. >> >> Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not >> expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a >> consensus decision from being reached. >> >> If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in favor, most >> organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would never >> reach any decisions. >> >> > we are effectively working against each other here. >> >> Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some of >> the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to >> discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action, I >> strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working >> against each other here”. >> >> In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign it >> does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits >> action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter it >> could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter it >> could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do >> understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. >> >> > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an >> > alternative. If that could be a solution for all >> >> No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since I've >> already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present >> letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat >> them again. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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: From joy at apc.org Wed Oct 16 21:25:50 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:25:50 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participan In-Reply-To: <525EF850.2070209@apc.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525EF850.2070209@apc.org> Message-ID: <525F3C9E.60808@apc.org> Thanks - I will add these links to the document. Best Joy On 17/10/2013 12:10 p.m., JFC Morfin wrote: > Joy, > I have been working along the same line at the IUCG. > > 1. you will find the IUWW (Intelligent Use/Internet Users Working > Wiki) at http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_Multi-stakeholderism > > 2. this is in the > http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations > section. > > At 19:25 16/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >> Very good start John but could I add a comment... >> >> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define MSism >> and even in those contexts where the term is being used to describe a >> process there is an implicit assumption of trustworthiness of the >> various parties. That is, there seems to be a belief in/acceptance >> of the good faith of the various parties -- no hidden motives, no >> hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or financial (or other) >> relationships. Thus there seems to be an expectation that >> people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say they are and that >> their involvement is transparent and their only specific >> accountability is what they are presenting through their contribution >> to the MS process itself. >> >> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition >> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the >> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; that >> various of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's terms >> below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but may >> rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, group, >> corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it may be >> that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common purpose" >> could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some circumstance at >> least no common goal or purpose does or even could exist among those >> who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) as "stakeholders". > > Michael, > > this is definitly true. This is why we have to stop considering that > the internet is "democratic" (actualy we mean "fair and friendly" old > days). The network should be neutral, not out of any universal philia > or human right philantropy, but because this is for each of us the way > to get it effilient (efficient and resilient) when having to fight and > win others. ICANN by-laws and OpenStand word it "to foster competition". > > The IUCG intends to contribute through its > http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness > section. > > Monarchy, democracy, polycracy are not ideals, they are _mecanisms_. > > Under given circumstances these mechanisms are more or less favorable > to a poltical, legal, military, international, moral, cultural, > economical, etc. _ethics_ that (when applied) permit to better attain > a societal ideal, i.e. an _esthetic_ the monarch, a congress, a > consensus has chosen. > > * *_Monarchy_* is a centralized network system that calls for a king, > delegates to Counts and is advised by Concelors. It is the basic > system, when the rules of the royal familly are accepted as the common > laws. > > * *_Democracy_* is a decentralized network systel that calls for a > core leadership by the eponym archon (President), assisted by the > basileus archon (Sheriff) and the polemarch archon (Commander in > Chief) supported by an elected Agora (Congress). It is the value added > system which is needed when free men want to decide the law. The US > built themselves on this model. > > * *_Polycracy _*is distributed network system that becomes necessary > when the societal organization becomes a sovereignties meshed > complexity. For 150 years we are increasingly learning about > policracy. First, with subsidiarity (rules must come from the nearest > one) and substitution (if the nearest one fails, the one above must > take-over for the shortest time): Europe is building itself on these > premises. We discover with the behavior of the whole digital ecosystem > that it comes with multistakeholderism - as we discovered with > industrial pollution that it comes with the precautionary principle. etc. > > Now, we have to consider the targets: the esthetic ideal for the human > society: > > * The *_WSIS_* esthetic is "*people centered*". > > * The *_IETF/IAB _*esthetic was "to make the internet *work better*" > along RFC 3935 *core values* (here was the dream of supposed > "democratic" loyal and disinterested philia). > > * The *_OpenStand_* esthetic for the "future of the internet > cooperation" is to *foster a FRAND competition* since the economics of > global markets and consumers drive the technological advancements. > > The MSism to be discussed in during *Brazil autumn* (april in south > hemisphere) by the "family" (Telcos included), is not going to be > "people centered" but, pragmatically, to "foster competition". This > means to make more money blackmailing every of us with the true/false > data collected on us. This is what I call the ... > "http://blackdata.biz ". > > jfc > > NB. A professional and objective descriptin of this reality is in > Ronald Diebert's > http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no6_2.pdf > - a text to > carefully digest. > > > > > > >> >> That being the case what would/could an effective MS process look like? >> >> M >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] *On Behalf Of *John Curran >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:25 AM >> *To:* Jeremy Malcolm >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting >> participants >> >> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: >> >> >> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day >> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet >> policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda >> (particularly for Day 1 morning) >> is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, >> the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, >> Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more >> >> I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" >> (presumably with >> respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance) >> >> As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone >> is using the >> term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with >> some >> clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it >> were to be defined >> from the civil society perspective) >> >> In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: >> >> - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common >> purpose? >> >> - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all >> interested parties? >> >> - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties? >> >> - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide >> consideration of all inputs/views? >> >> - Respect for all participants involved? >> >> If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term >> "multi-stakeholder" >> (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of >> it, although the term >> does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid >> set of principles >> regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your >> present plans or goals for >> the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired. >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via >> multi-stakeholder >> processes (unless one credits various portions of >> my consciousness >> with independent stakeholder status... ;-) >> >> >> > > At 21:01 16/10/2013, John Curran wrote: >> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein > > wrote: >> >>> Very good start John but could I add a comment... >> >> Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just my >> offhand >> thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this topic. >> >> I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical >> community >> have some significant common ground in terms of belief in >> multi-stakeholder >> principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common >> definition (if >> that is achievable.) >> >>> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define >>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to >>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of >>> trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to be >>> a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties -- >>> no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or >>> financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an >>> expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say >>> they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only >>> specific accountability is what they are presenting through their >>> contribution to the MS process itself. >> >> >> >> I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an >> agenda; it may or may be >> "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, but >> presumably there is >> still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make >> progress, yes? >> For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a >> meeting, I've pretty much got to >> carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these >> may be 'hidden' to anyone >> who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the >> Montevideo Statement on Future of >> Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply lack >> of understanding of common >> goals that might already exist. >> >> The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective >> goal or common purpose, that >> should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place, >> particularly if the time is taken to >> find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which >> reduces the possibility of >> working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs. >> >>> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition >>> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the >>> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; >>> thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's >>> terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but >>> may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, >>> group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it >>> may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common >>> purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some >>> circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could >>> exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) >>> as "stakeholders". >> >> I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which is >> not a situation of unknown >> motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or >> subterfuge by a participant); my only >> advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting >> views and positions so that >> such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time. >> >> For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services >> offered by ARIN are set by >> proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the >> greater Internet community >> but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP >> address policy, which we believe >> should be open to all and whose processes should subject to >> widespread accountability/oversight >> to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a >> discussion with civil society for me >> to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference that >> ARIN is wonderful and completely >> guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be >> shown to be disingenuous given >> existing documentation and other public statements showing that we >> strongly feel that our members >> (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that we >> offer and fees that we charge. >> My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that >> getting participants to speak up >> and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over >> time) provide some protection >> against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a >> suggestion on this; I'm afraid that >> defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous >> intentionally bad actors may >> not be readily achievable. >> >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at your own >> risk. >> >> >> >> > > At 22:34 16/10/2013, joy wrote: >> Hi all - since Parminder and I are facilitating this opening session >> and the definitions discussion, I think it would be useful to collate >> some of these ideas, with your permission :-) >> If others have ideas or suggestions they would like to share >> beforehand, please do so, I have started a pirate pad for this purpose: >> http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ >> >> Kind regards >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> >> >> >> On 17/10/2013 8:01 a.m., John Curran wrote: >>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Very good start John but could I add a comment... >>> >>> Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just >>> my offhand >>> thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this topic. >>> >>> I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical >>> community >>> have some significant common ground in terms of belief in >>> multi-stakeholder >>> principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common >>> definition (if >>> that is achievable.) >>> >>>> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define >>>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to >>>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of >>>> trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to be >>>> a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties -- >>>> no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or >>>> financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an >>>> expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say >>>> they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only >>>> specific accountability is what they are presenting through their >>>> contribution to the MS process itself. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an >>> agenda; it may or may be >>> "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, >>> but presumably there is >>> still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make >>> progress, yes? >>> For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a >>> meeting, I've pretty much got to >>> carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these >>> may be 'hidden' to anyone >>> who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the >>> Montevideo Statement on Future of >>> Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply >>> lack of understanding of common >>> goals that might already exist. >>> >>> The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective >>> goal or common purpose, that >>> should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place, >>> particularly if the time is taken to >>> find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which >>> reduces the possibility of >>> working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs. >>> >>>> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >>>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition >>>> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the >>>> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; >>>> thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's >>>> terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" >>>> but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, >>>> group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it >>>> may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common >>>> purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some >>>> circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could >>>> exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) >>>> as "stakeholders". >>> >>> I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which >>> is not a situation of unknown >>> motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or >>> subterfuge by a participant); my only >>> advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting >>> views and positions so that >>> such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time. >>> >>> For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services >>> offered by ARIN are set by >>> proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the >>> greater Internet community >>> but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP >>> address policy, which we believe >>> should be open to all and whose processes should subject to >>> widespread accountability/oversight >>> to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a >>> discussion with civil society for me >>> to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference >>> that ARIN is wonderful and completely >>> guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be >>> shown to be disingenuous given >>> existing documentation and other public statements showing that we >>> strongly feel that our members >>> (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that >>> we offer and fees that we charge. >>> My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that >>> getting participants to speak up >>> and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over >>> time) provide some protection >>> against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a >>> suggestion on this; I'm afraid that >>> defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous >>> intentionally bad actors may >>> not be readily achievable. >>> >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at your >>> own risk. >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 16 22:12:03 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 04:12:03 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participan In-Reply-To: <525F3C9E.60808@apc.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525EF850.2070209@apc.org> <525F3C9E.60808@apc.org> Message-ID: <525F4773.1070208@apc.org> Hi all I attach the recommendations from a workshop on how to have effective participative policy processes that APC, CDT and Nepad convened at the African IGF. It contains some useful and practical points on how to make these MS type processes more effective. Anriette On 17/10/2013 03:25, joy wrote: > Thanks - I will add these links to the document. > Best > Joy > On 17/10/2013 12:10 p.m., JFC Morfin wrote: >> Joy, >> I have been working along the same line at the IUCG. >> >> 1. you will find the IUWW (Intelligent Use/Internet Users Working >> Wiki) at http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_Multi-stakeholderism >> >> 2. this is in the >> http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations >> section. >> >> At 19:25 16/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Very good start John but could I add a comment... >>> >>> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define >>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to >>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of >>> trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to be >>> a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties -- >>> no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or >>> financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an >>> expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say >>> they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only >>> specific accountability is what they are presenting through their >>> contribution to the MS process itself. >>> >>> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition >>> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the >>> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; that >>> various of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's terms >>> below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but may >>> rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, group, >>> corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it may be >>> that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common purpose" >>> could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some circumstance at >>> least no common goal or purpose does or even could exist among >>> those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) as >>> "stakeholders". >> >> Michael, >> >> this is definitly true. This is why we have to stop considering that >> the internet is "democratic" (actualy we mean "fair and friendly" old >> days). The network should be neutral, not out of any universal philia >> or human right philantropy, but because this is for each of us the >> way to get it effilient (efficient and resilient) when having to >> fight and win others. ICANN by-laws and OpenStand word it "to foster >> competition". >> >> The IUCG intends to contribute through its >> http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness >> section. >> >> Monarchy, democracy, polycracy are not ideals, they are _mecanisms_. >> >> Under given circumstances these mechanisms are more or less favorable >> to a poltical, legal, military, international, moral, cultural, >> economical, etc. _ethics_ that (when applied) permit to better attain >> a societal ideal, i.e. an _esthetic_ the monarch, a congress, a >> consensus has chosen. >> >> * *_Monarchy_* is a centralized network system that calls for a king, >> delegates to Counts and is advised by Concelors. It is the basic >> system, when the rules of the royal familly are accepted as the >> common laws. >> >> * *_Democracy_* is a decentralized network systel that calls for a >> core leadership by the eponym archon (President), assisted by the >> basileus archon (Sheriff) and the polemarch archon (Commander in >> Chief) supported by an elected Agora (Congress). It is the value >> added system which is needed when free men want to decide the law. >> The US built themselves on this model. >> >> * *_Polycracy _*is distributed network system that becomes necessary >> when the societal organization becomes a sovereignties meshed >> complexity. For 150 years we are increasingly learning about >> policracy. First, with subsidiarity (rules must come from the nearest >> one) and substitution (if the nearest one fails, the one above must >> take-over for the shortest time): Europe is building itself on these >> premises. We discover with the behavior of the whole digital >> ecosystem that it comes with multistakeholderism - as we discovered >> with industrial pollution that it comes with the precautionary >> principle. etc. >> >> Now, we have to consider the targets: the esthetic ideal for the >> human society: >> >> * The *_WSIS_* esthetic is "*people centered*". >> >> * The *_IETF/IAB _*esthetic was "to make the internet *work better*" >> along RFC 3935 *core values* (here was the dream of supposed >> "democratic" loyal and disinterested philia). >> >> * The *_OpenStand_* esthetic for the "future of the internet >> cooperation" is to *foster a FRAND competition* since the economics >> of global markets and consumers drive the technological advancements. >> >> The MSism to be discussed in during *Brazil autumn* (april in south >> hemisphere) by the "family" (Telcos included), is not going to be >> "people centered" but, pragmatically, to "foster competition". This >> means to make more money blackmailing every of us with the true/false >> data collected on us. This is what I call the ... >> "http://blackdata.biz ". >> >> jfc >> >> NB. A professional and objective descriptin of this reality is in >> Ronald Diebert's >> http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no6_2.pdf >> - a text to >> carefully digest. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> That being the case what would/could an effective MS process look like? >>> >>> M >>> >>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> ] *On Behalf Of *John Curran >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:25 AM >>> *To:* Jeremy Malcolm >>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting >>> participants >>> >>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day >>> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet >>> policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda >>> (particularly for Day 1 morning) >>> is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, >>> the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, >>> Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the >>> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more >>> >>> I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" >>> (presumably with >>> respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance) >>> >>> As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that >>> everyone is using the >>> term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term >>> with some >>> clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it >>> were to be defined >>> from the civil society perspective) >>> >>> In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: >>> >>> - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common >>> purpose? >>> >>> - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all >>> interested parties? >>> >>> - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties? >>> >>> - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide >>> consideration of all inputs/views? >>> >>> - Respect for all participants involved? >>> >>> If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term >>> "multi-stakeholder" >>> (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of >>> it, although the term >>> does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid >>> set of principles >>> regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your >>> present plans or goals for >>> the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via >>> multi-stakeholder >>> processes (unless one credits various portions of >>> my consciousness >>> with independent stakeholder status... ;-) >>> >>> >>> >> >> At 21:01 16/10/2013, John Curran wrote: >>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Very good start John but could I add a comment... >>> >>> Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just >>> my offhand >>> thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this topic. >>> >>> I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical >>> community >>> have some significant common ground in terms of belief in >>> multi-stakeholder >>> principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common >>> definition (if >>> that is achievable.) >>> >>>> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define >>>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to >>>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of >>>> trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to be >>>> a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties -- >>>> no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or >>>> financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an >>>> expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say >>>> they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only >>>> specific accountability is what they are presenting through their >>>> contribution to the MS process itself. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an >>> agenda; it may or may be >>> "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, >>> but presumably there is >>> still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make >>> progress, yes? >>> For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a >>> meeting, I've pretty much got to >>> carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these >>> may be 'hidden' to anyone >>> who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the >>> Montevideo Statement on Future of >>> Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply >>> lack of understanding of common >>> goals that might already exist. >>> >>> The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective >>> goal or common purpose, that >>> should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place, >>> particularly if the time is taken to >>> find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which >>> reduces the possibility of >>> working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs. >>> >>>> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >>>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition >>>> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the >>>> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; >>>> thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's >>>> terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" >>>> but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, >>>> group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it >>>> may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common >>>> purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some >>>> circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could >>>> exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) >>>> as "stakeholders". >>> >>> I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which >>> is not a situation of unknown >>> motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or >>> subterfuge by a participant); my only >>> advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting >>> views and positions so that >>> such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time. >>> >>> For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services >>> offered by ARIN are set by >>> proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the >>> greater Internet community >>> but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP >>> address policy, which we believe >>> should be open to all and whose processes should subject to >>> widespread accountability/oversight >>> to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a >>> discussion with civil society for me >>> to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference >>> that ARIN is wonderful and completely >>> guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be >>> shown to be disingenuous given >>> existing documentation and other public statements showing that we >>> strongly feel that our members >>> (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that >>> we offer and fees that we charge. >>> My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that >>> getting participants to speak up >>> and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over >>> time) provide some protection >>> against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a >>> suggestion on this; I'm afraid that >>> defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous >>> intentionally bad actors may >>> not be readily achievable. >>> >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at your >>> own risk. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> At 22:34 16/10/2013, joy wrote: >>> Hi all - since Parminder and I are facilitating this opening session >>> and the definitions discussion, I think it would be useful to >>> collate some of these ideas, with your permission :-) >>> If others have ideas or suggestions they would like to share >>> beforehand, please do so, I have started a pirate pad for this purpose: >>> http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Joy Liddicoat >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17/10/2013 8:01 a.m., John Curran wrote: >>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Very good start John but could I add a comment... >>>> >>>> Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just >>>> my offhand >>>> thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this >>>> topic. >>>> >>>> I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical >>>> community >>>> have some significant common ground in terms of belief in >>>> multi-stakeholder >>>> principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common >>>> definition (if >>>> that is achievable.) >>>> >>>>> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define >>>>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to >>>>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of >>>>> trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to >>>>> be a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties >>>>> -- no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or >>>>> financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an >>>>> expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say >>>>> they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only >>>>> specific accountability is what they are presenting through their >>>>> contribution to the MS process itself. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an >>>> agenda; it may or may be >>>> "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, >>>> but presumably there is >>>> still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make >>>> progress, yes? >>>> For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a >>>> meeting, I've pretty much got to >>>> carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; >>>> these may be 'hidden' to anyone >>>> who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the >>>> Montevideo Statement on Future of >>>> Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply >>>> lack of understanding of common >>>> goals that might already exist. >>>> >>>> The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective >>>> goal or common purpose, that >>>> should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place, >>>> particularly if the time is taken to >>>> find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which >>>> reduces the possibility of >>>> working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs. >>>> >>>>> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >>>>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or >>>>> definition of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, >>>>> even the likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold >>>>> true; thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in >>>>> John's terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common >>>>> purpose" but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of >>>>> individual, group, corporate, ideological or national >>>>> self-interest. In fact it may be that the assumption by some of >>>>> the existance of a "common purpose" could be self-destructively >>>>> "naïve" and that in some circumstance at least no common goal or >>>>> purpose does or even could exist among those who are defininng >>>>> themselves (and being accepted) as "stakeholders". >>>> >>>> I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which >>>> is not a situation of unknown >>>> motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or >>>> subterfuge by a participant); my only >>>> advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting >>>> views and positions so that >>>> such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time. >>>> >>>> For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services >>>> offered by ARIN are set by >>>> proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not >>>> the greater Internet community >>>> but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP >>>> address policy, which we believe >>>> should be open to all and whose processes should subject to >>>> widespread accountability/oversight >>>> to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a >>>> discussion with civil society for me >>>> to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference >>>> that ARIN is wonderful and completely >>>> guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be >>>> shown to be disingenuous given >>>> existing documentation and other public statements showing that we >>>> strongly feel that our members >>>> (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that >>>> we offer and fees that we charge. >>>> My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that >>>> getting participants to speak up >>>> and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over >>>> time) provide some protection >>>> against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a >>>> suggestion on this; I'm afraid that >>>> defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous >>>> intentionally bad actors may >>>> not be readily achievable. >>>> >>>> /John >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at your >>>> own risk. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AfIGF13_pre-event_Policy_process_Recommendations_Final_24092013 .pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 116057 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joy at apc.org Wed Oct 16 22:53:58 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:53:58 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participan In-Reply-To: <525F4773.1070208@apc.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <03aa01ceca94$cee7c770$6cb75650$@gmail.com> <525EF850.2070209@apc.org> <525F3C9E.60808@apc.org> <525F4773.1070208@apc.org> Message-ID: <525F5146.3020000@apc.org> thanks - I have added a link to this in the pirate pad: http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ Please, others, do feel free to share and thanks JFC for yours also Joy On 17/10/2013 3:12 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all > > I attach the recommendations from a workshop on how to have effective > participative policy processes that APC, CDT and Nepad convened at the > African IGF. It contains some useful and practical points on how to > make these MS type processes more effective. > > Anriette > > > On 17/10/2013 03:25, joy wrote: >> Thanks - I will add these links to the document. >> Best >> Joy >> On 17/10/2013 12:10 p.m., JFC Morfin wrote: >>> Joy, >>> I have been working along the same line at the IUCG. >>> >>> 1. you will find the IUWW (Intelligent Use/Internet Users Working >>> Wiki) at http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_Multi-stakeholderism >>> >>> 2. this is in the >>> http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations >>> section. >>> >>> At 19:25 16/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Very good start John but could I add a comment... >>>> >>>> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define >>>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to >>>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of >>>> trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to be >>>> a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties -- >>>> no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or >>>> financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an >>>> expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say >>>> they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only >>>> specific accountability is what they are presenting through their >>>> contribution to the MS process itself. >>>> >>>> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >>>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition >>>> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the >>>> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; that >>>> various of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's terms >>>> below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but may >>>> rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, group, >>>> corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it may be >>>> that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common purpose" >>>> could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some circumstance >>>> at least no common goal or purpose does or even could exist among >>>> those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) as >>>> "stakeholders". >>> >>> Michael, >>> >>> this is definitly true. This is why we have to stop considering that >>> the internet is "democratic" (actualy we mean "fair and friendly" >>> old days). The network should be neutral, not out of any universal >>> philia or human right philantropy, but because this is for each of >>> us the way to get it effilient (efficient and resilient) when having >>> to fight and win others. ICANN by-laws and OpenStand word it "to >>> foster competition". >>> >>> The IUCG intends to contribute through its >>> http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness >>> section. >>> >>> Monarchy, democracy, polycracy are not ideals, they are _mecanisms_. >>> >>> Under given circumstances these mechanisms are more or less >>> favorable to a poltical, legal, military, international, moral, >>> cultural, economical, etc. _ethics_ that (when applied) permit to >>> better attain a societal ideal, i.e. an _esthetic_ the monarch, a >>> congress, a consensus has chosen. >>> >>> * *_Monarchy_* is a centralized network system that calls for a >>> king, delegates to Counts and is advised by Concelors. It is the >>> basic system, when the rules of the royal familly are accepted as >>> the common laws. >>> >>> * *_Democracy_* is a decentralized network systel that calls for a >>> core leadership by the eponym archon (President), assisted by the >>> basileus archon (Sheriff) and the polemarch archon (Commander in >>> Chief) supported by an elected Agora (Congress). It is the value >>> added system which is needed when free men want to decide the law. >>> The US built themselves on this model. >>> >>> * *_Polycracy _*is distributed network system that becomes necessary >>> when the societal organization becomes a sovereignties meshed >>> complexity. For 150 years we are increasingly learning about >>> policracy. First, with subsidiarity (rules must come from the >>> nearest one) and substitution (if the nearest one fails, the one >>> above must take-over for the shortest time): Europe is building >>> itself on these premises. We discover with the behavior of the whole >>> digital ecosystem that it comes with multistakeholderism - as we >>> discovered with industrial pollution that it comes with the >>> precautionary principle. etc. >>> >>> Now, we have to consider the targets: the esthetic ideal for the >>> human society: >>> >>> * The *_WSIS_* esthetic is "*people centered*". >>> >>> * The *_IETF/IAB _*esthetic was "to make the internet *work better*" >>> along RFC 3935 *core values* (here was the dream of supposed >>> "democratic" loyal and disinterested philia). >>> >>> * The *_OpenStand_* esthetic for the "future of the internet >>> cooperation" is to *foster a FRAND competition* since the economics >>> of global markets and consumers drive the technological advancements. >>> >>> The MSism to be discussed in during *Brazil autumn* (april in south >>> hemisphere) by the "family" (Telcos included), is not going to be >>> "people centered" but, pragmatically, to "foster competition". This >>> means to make more money blackmailing every of us with the >>> true/false data collected on us. This is what I call the ... >>> "http://blackdata.biz ". >>> >>> jfc >>> >>> NB. A professional and objective descriptin of this reality is in >>> Ronald Diebert's >>> http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no6_2.pdf >>> - a text >>> to carefully digest. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> That being the case what would/could an effective MS process look like? >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> ] *On Behalf Of *John >>>> Curran >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:25 AM >>>> *To:* Jeremy Malcolm >>>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting >>>> participants >>>> >>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day >>>> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet >>>> policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda >>>> (particularly for Day 1 morning) >>>> is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government >>>> surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet >>>> goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at >>>> WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more >>>> >>>> I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" >>>> (presumably with >>>> respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance) >>>> >>>> As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that >>>> everyone is using the >>>> term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term >>>> with some >>>> clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if >>>> it were to be defined >>>> from the civil society perspective) >>>> >>>> In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: >>>> >>>> - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or >>>> common purpose? >>>> >>>> - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all >>>> interested parties? >>>> >>>> - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties? >>>> >>>> - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide >>>> consideration of all inputs/views? >>>> >>>> - Respect for all participants involved? >>>> >>>> If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term >>>> "multi-stakeholder" >>>> (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of >>>> it, although the term >>>> does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more >>>> solid set of principles >>>> regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your >>>> present plans or goals for >>>> the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> /John >>>> >>>> Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via >>>> multi-stakeholder >>>> processes (unless one credits various portions >>>> of my consciousness >>>> with independent stakeholder status... ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> At 21:01 16/10/2013, John Curran wrote: >>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Very good start John but could I add a comment... >>>> >>>> Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just >>>> my offhand >>>> thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this >>>> topic. >>>> >>>> I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical >>>> community >>>> have some significant common ground in terms of belief in >>>> multi-stakeholder >>>> principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common >>>> definition (if >>>> that is achievable.) >>>> >>>>> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define >>>>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to >>>>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of >>>>> trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to >>>>> be a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties >>>>> -- no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or >>>>> financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an >>>>> expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say >>>>> they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only >>>>> specific accountability is what they are presenting through their >>>>> contribution to the MS process itself. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an >>>> agenda; it may or may be >>>> "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, >>>> but presumably there is >>>> still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make >>>> progress, yes? >>>> For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a >>>> meeting, I've pretty much got to >>>> carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; >>>> these may be 'hidden' to anyone >>>> who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the >>>> Montevideo Statement on Future of >>>> Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply >>>> lack of understanding of common >>>> goals that might already exist. >>>> >>>> The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective >>>> goal or common purpose, that >>>> should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place, >>>> particularly if the time is taken to >>>> find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which >>>> reduces the possibility of >>>> working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs. >>>> >>>>> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >>>>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or >>>>> definition of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, >>>>> even the likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold >>>>> true; thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in >>>>> John's terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common >>>>> purpose" but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of >>>>> individual, group, corporate, ideological or national >>>>> self-interest. In fact it may be that the assumption by some of >>>>> the existance of a "common purpose" could be self-destructively >>>>> "naïve" and that in some circumstance at least no common goal or >>>>> purpose does or even could exist among those who are defininng >>>>> themselves (and being accepted) as "stakeholders". >>>> >>>> I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which >>>> is not a situation of unknown >>>> motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or >>>> subterfuge by a participant); my only >>>> advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting >>>> views and positions so that >>>> such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time. >>>> >>>> For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services >>>> offered by ARIN are set by >>>> proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not >>>> the greater Internet community >>>> but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP >>>> address policy, which we believe >>>> should be open to all and whose processes should subject to >>>> widespread accountability/oversight >>>> to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a >>>> discussion with civil society for me >>>> to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference >>>> that ARIN is wonderful and completely >>>> guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be >>>> shown to be disingenuous given >>>> existing documentation and other public statements showing that we >>>> strongly feel that our members >>>> (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that >>>> we offer and fees that we charge. >>>> My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that >>>> getting participants to speak up >>>> and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over >>>> time) provide some protection >>>> against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a >>>> suggestion on this; I'm afraid that >>>> defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous >>>> intentionally bad actors may >>>> not be readily achievable. >>>> >>>> /John >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at your >>>> own risk. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> At 22:34 16/10/2013, joy wrote: >>>> Hi all - since Parminder and I are facilitating this opening >>>> session and the definitions discussion, I think it would be useful >>>> to collate some of these ideas, with your permission :-) >>>> If others have ideas or suggestions they would like to share >>>> beforehand, please do so, I have started a pirate pad for this >>>> purpose: >>>> http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> >>>> Joy Liddicoat >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17/10/2013 8:01 a.m., John Curran wrote: >>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Very good start John but could I add a comment... >>>>> >>>>> Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just >>>>> my offhand >>>>> thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this >>>>> topic. >>>>> >>>>> I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet >>>>> technical community >>>>> have some significant common ground in terms of belief in >>>>> multi-stakeholder >>>>> principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common >>>>> definition (if >>>>> that is achievable.) >>>>> >>>>>> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define >>>>>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to >>>>>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of >>>>>> trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to >>>>>> be a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various >>>>>> parties -- no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden >>>>>> loyalties or financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems >>>>>> to be an expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what >>>>>> they say they are and that their involvement is transparent and >>>>>> their only specific accountability is what they are presenting >>>>>> through their contribution to the MS process itself. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has >>>>> an agenda; it may or may be >>>>> "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, >>>>> but presumably there is >>>>> still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make >>>>> progress, yes? >>>>> For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a >>>>> meeting, I've pretty much got to >>>>> carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; >>>>> these may be 'hidden' to anyone >>>>> who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the >>>>> Montevideo Statement on Future of >>>>> Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply >>>>> lack of understanding of common >>>>> goals that might already exist. >>>>> >>>>> The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective >>>>> goal or common purpose, that >>>>> should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place, >>>>> particularly if the time is taken to >>>>> find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which >>>>> reduces the possibility of >>>>> working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs. >>>>> >>>>>> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to >>>>>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or >>>>>> definition of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, >>>>>> even the likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold >>>>>> true; thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in >>>>>> John's terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common >>>>>> purpose" but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of >>>>>> individual, group, corporate, ideological or national >>>>>> self-interest. In fact it may be that the assumption by some of >>>>>> the existance of a "common purpose" could be self-destructively >>>>>> "naïve" and that in some circumstance at least no common goal or >>>>>> purpose does or even could exist among those who are defininng >>>>>> themselves (and being accepted) as "stakeholders". >>>>> >>>>> I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which >>>>> is not a situation of unknown >>>>> motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or >>>>> subterfuge by a participant); my only >>>>> advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting >>>>> views and positions so that >>>>> such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time. >>>>> >>>>> For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and >>>>> services offered by ARIN are set by >>>>> proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not >>>>> the greater Internet community >>>>> but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of >>>>> IP address policy, which we believe >>>>> should be open to all and whose processes should subject to >>>>> widespread accountability/oversight >>>>> to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a >>>>> discussion with civil society for me >>>>> to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference >>>>> that ARIN is wonderful and completely >>>>> guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be >>>>> shown to be disingenuous given >>>>> existing documentation and other public statements showing that we >>>>> strongly feel that our members >>>>> (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that >>>>> we offer and fees that we charge. >>>>> My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that >>>>> getting participants to speak up >>>>> and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over >>>>> time) provide some protection >>>>> against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a >>>>> suggestion on this; I'm afraid that >>>>> defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous >>>>> intentionally bad actors may >>>>> not be readily achievable. >>>>> >>>>> /John >>>>> >>>>> Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at your >>>>> own risk. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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: From anriette at apc.org Thu Oct 17 00:44:19 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:44:19 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] INVITATION! Disco-tech at the Bali IGF In-Reply-To: <20131016131651.1E3121093E445@lists.apcwomen.org> References: <20131016131651.1E3121093E445@lists.apcwomen.org> Message-ID: <525F6B23.9090708@apc.org> Dear all Apologies for cross posts. Please all of you who are in Bali, come to this! Anriette ---------------------- Dear friends! DO YOU WANT TO FEEL MORE IN CONTROL OF YOUR ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS? COME TO THE APC TACTICAL TECH DISCO-TECH! The security of digital networks and information is becoming increasingly important to all internet users due to the increase in incidences of governments and corporations spying on netizens and human rights defenders. Journalists, democracy activists, women human rights defenders and sexual rights activists, who use ICTs to report on, and campaign against, human rights abuses face surveillance, censorship, information security vulnerabilities, and information security compromises that can be life threatening.^1 <#sdfootnote1sym> To shed light on the practical steps that members of civil society can take to protect themselves and their activism, APC and Tactical Tech are hosting a peer-learning session on the night before the global IGF in Bali, 21 October 2013. We're calling it “the Disco-tech” because the format of the event will be very unique. Participants can learn about technological solutions in an inspiring and relaxed yet high-energy atmosphere. Experts and activists will be talking about tools and experiences with online surveillance, safety, the right to privacy and anonymity. Participants will have the opportunity to set up stations to share technological tools, information or discuss specific issues. A “key signing party” and an introduction to encryption will be held in parallel. Event details * Date/time: 21 October 19:00 – 22:00 * Venue: Mantra Nusa Dua^2 <#sdfootnote2sym> ballroom * Transport: IGF shuttle bus * Attendance: Approx. 100 people * Food: Light snacks and drinks We really hope that you can join us. Please bring your colleagues and partners as well. Speakers from all over the world include: Shahzad Ahmad, Bytes for All Pakistan; Ellery Biddle, Global Voices; Sarah Clarke, Pen International; Mahmood Enayat, Small Media Foundation; Robert Guerra, Citizen Lab; Gerard Harris, Deflect.ca; Octavia Jonsdottir, IREX; Nadine Moawad, APC; M. Chris Riley, Mozilla; and Bobby Soriano, Tactical Tech. See you in Bali! Please RSVP to: Mallory Knodel, APC - mallory at apc.org Gillo Cutrupi, TTC - gillo at tacticaltech.org 1 <#sdfootnote1anc>Alex Comninos, http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/PRINT_ISSUE_Cyberseguridad_EN.pdf 2 <#sdfootnote2anc> http://www.mantranusadua.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebertoni65 at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 11:35:56 2013 From: ebertoni65 at gmail.com (Eduardo Bertoni) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:35:56 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9E902D34-D45E-4890-A074-FC5CD509E413@gmail.com> Hi there I am glad that my note triggered this discussion. See you all in Bali to continue the current debate. Eduardo Bertoni Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos or brevity. > On Oct 16, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when states commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the best track record when it comes to making itself accountable before international human rights institutions for its domestic policies (neither incidentally has the US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are being built in India and that there has been quite a lot of resistance to government transparency when it comes to blocking or interception (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as justification for domestic policy). I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as President Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states to be accountable to individuals. > > I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a surveillance order if you never find out about it. > > Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a system in which it is accountable to individuals in an international human rights forum. > > See you at the IGF :) > Chinmayi > > > > >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >>>> We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. >>> >>> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications”) in the end. >>> >>> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that her concern seems to be that there should be some accountability with respect to human rights, I sympathise. The Indian government seems to be in I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite correctly that while everybody else was being told off for human rights violations, the countries telling them off were also committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow justify another's (I still would not support the resolution that India presented to the UN last year), >> >> Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human rights violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference between US violating rights of people in a situation where it admits of no avenues of recourse, even at a theoretical -political level, and when such things happen within a political system which has its dynamics that can be engaged to avoid or reduce such violation. CIRP like global governance proposals are about having a global political regime within which then efforts can be made to fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights violation against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative different kind, from the very important issue of domestic surveillances that we all struggle against. >> >>> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing as the best model. >> >> Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what 'should be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a thing. >> >> Best , parminder >>> >>> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely in terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the ITRs debates - that many were stepping away from the actual text and merely pointing out who was signing as an argument for not signing. Isn't it better to just discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and determine on that basis whether it is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? >>> >>> Best, >>> Chinmayi >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition, a group of governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send a positive message to the international community. Countries that join the coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other hand, other countries that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia, China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in the past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly, which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from its partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >>>>> >>>> >>>> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Oct 17 01:17:12 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:17:12 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Brenden, read with interest. I particularly noted “Let us also not forget that ICANN and its oversight are the main topic of the meeting”. Is there some specific background to this claim? Is this really a conference specifically about ICANN oversight (and if it is, do we really think that is a good idea given other current issues?) Ian Peter From: Brenden Kuerbis Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu ; Mawaki Chango Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Norbert Bollow ; Anja Kovacs Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Hello, On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including CS proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. Apologies for the cross-post. I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move ICANN away from unilateral oversight: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org Thanks, Mawaki On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Anja Kovacs wrote: > I do want to > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the consensus > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have expressed > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I think it > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”. That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are strongly in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend political capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a decision in favor. Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a consensus decision from being reached. If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in favor, most organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would never reach any decisions. > we are effectively working against each other here. Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some of the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action, I strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working against each other here”. In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign it does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter it could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter it could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an > alternative. If that could be a solution for all No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since I've already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat them again. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 4 10:50:24 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 22:50:24 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> On 04/10/2013, at 5:44 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Both the substance of these principles and the process around drafting them is something civil society should have a stance on. If the BB group could draft a joint statement to address civil society concerns around this document, a few of us who managed to get accredited (I am aware of four other CS people who are going) could aim to submit it to the governments while in Seoul. This would have to be done before our meeting in Bali, then. Do you want to start something off on the etherpad? > I think Parminder is right – we should pay closer attention to this and related processes. These UN/OECD source documents have not just appeared out of the blue – they have been drafted across many months by governments sitting in these forums, while going almost unnoticed in our circles. Seeing as internet governance is increasingly entering the field of high politics at the UNGA, and how the issue area is becoming an MFA agenda item (rather than just a telecom ministries’ issue), we could do worse than to start working of a strategy to engage in these forums and not just the ITU and WSIS+10-related events. Perhaps something to address at the BB session in Bali? Luckily we do have people who are involved in those other processes so they are not going completely unnoticed, but this is not the first time that the suggestion has come up that the OECD work could also be relevant to Best Bits. I would be happy to give a briefing on the OECD Internet Policy Principles in Bali if we have time. -- 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: -------------- 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: From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 17 03:08:47 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 02:08:47 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> Message-ID: <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> Hi, I think that one reason the form of participatory democracy we are calling multistakeholderism (MSism) is not uniform in that there are many ways in which it can be expressed. I do not think we will find a single definition. And even if we could, even if there was just one modality for MSism, just one way to implement the multistakeholder model ,it would be something that is still in development and discovery. But I do not beleive there is a single way to implement a multistakeholder model, and I don't beleive any existing organization has the perfect exemplar - though there may be one I don't know of either in Internet governance or some other field and though several of those still in the crucible of real life deployment attempting real world management and regulatory functions do show promise, in my opinion. It is a relatively new trend in world history and in the development of democracy - less that few score years at the most. It is a form that I beleive is built upon the modern world's ability to communicate across cultures and to travel freely across borders. I think as we gain more experience and do more study on the variety of multistakeholder models we will discover characteristics that all forms of the model must have. I think the points you make below are all part of the framework for any definition. And I think there is value in trying to scope out the framework, starting with the things that no governance system that wants to call itself multistakeholder can do without. I think your list of questions is the start of a good question set. I also think that BestBits spending time on this is a good idea, as long as it does not try to define one form, or as long as it does not create a strawman that allows people to discount the ongoing real life efforts to develop participatory democracy in governance. If we develop a system purely for the reason of furthering people's attacks on the existing efforts at the multistakeholder model, I think it will be counterproductive, at best. avri Note: I would make the point that it is even harder to define civil society than it is to define MSism. but given that I self identify as a member of both civil society and the technical community, I strongly agree about the commonality of many goals. On 16 Oct 2013, at 09:25, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more > > I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with > respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance) > > As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone is using the > term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with some > clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it were to be defined > from the civil society perspective) > > In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: > > - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common purpose? > > - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all interested parties? > > - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties? > > - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide consideration of all inputs/views? > > - Respect for all participants involved? > > If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term "multi-stakeholder" > (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term > does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid set of principles > regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your present plans or goals for > the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired. > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via multi-stakeholder > processes (unless one credits various portions of my consciousness > with independent stakeholder status... ;-) > > > -------------- 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: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 17 03:17:05 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:17:05 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> Message-ID: <20131017091705.2f291cac@swan.bollow.ch> Hi Avri Do in your view all forms of multistakeholderism deserve to be considered a “a form” of democracy? Greetings, Norbert Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think that one reason the form of participatory democracy we are > calling multistakeholderism (MSism) is not uniform in that there are > many ways in which it can be expressed. > > I do not think we will find a single definition. And even if we > could, even if there was just one modality for MSism, just one way to > implement the multistakeholder model ,it would be something that is > still in development and discovery. > > But I do not beleive there is a single way to implement a > multistakeholder model, and I don't beleive any existing organization > has the perfect exemplar - though there may be one I don't know of > either in Internet governance or some other field and though several > of those still in the crucible of real life deployment attempting > real world management and regulatory functions do show promise, in my > opinion. > > It is a relatively new trend in world history and in the development > of democracy - less that few score years at the most. It is a form > that I beleive is built upon the modern world's ability to > communicate across cultures and to travel freely across borders. > > I think as we gain more experience and do more study on the variety > of multistakeholder models we will discover characteristics that all > forms of the model must have. > > I think the points you make below are all part of the framework for > any definition. And I think there is value in trying to scope out > the framework, starting with the things that no governance system > that wants to call itself multistakeholder can do without. > > I think your list of questions is the start of a good question set. > > I also think that BestBits spending time on this is a good idea, as > long as it does not try to define one form, or as long as it does not > create a strawman that allows people to discount the ongoing real > life efforts to develop participatory democracy in governance. If we > develop a system purely for the reason of furthering people's attacks > on the existing efforts at the multistakeholder model, I think it > will be counterproductive, at best. > > avri > > Note: I would make the point that it is even harder to define civil > society than it is to define MSism. but given that I self identify > as a member of both civil society and the technical community, I > strongly agree about the commonality of many goals. > > > On 16 Oct 2013, at 09:25, John Curran wrote: > > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: > > > >> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day > >> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet > >> policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly > >> for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass > >> government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation > >> of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes > >> underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, > >> plus more > > > > I note on the agenda is the item "What is > > multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with respect to matters of > > Internet coordination/governance) > > > > As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that > > everyone is using the term in the same manner, and documenting the > > meaning of the term with some clarity might be very helpful in the > > coming days (particularly if it were to be defined from the civil > > society perspective) > > > > In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: > > > > - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or > > common purpose? > > > > - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all > > interested parties? > > > > - Documents and materials made freely available online to all > > parties? > > > > - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide > > consideration of all inputs/views? > > > > - Respect for all participants involved? > > > > If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term > > "multi-stakeholder" (in matters of Internet > > coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term > > does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more > > solid set of principles regarding its use. If this suggestion is > > not aligned with your present plans or goals for the meeting, feel > > free to discard it as desired. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > > Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via > > multi-stakeholder processes (unless one credits various portions of > > my consciousness with independent stakeholder status... ;-) > > > > > > > From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 17 04:14:50 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 01:14:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <20131017091705.2f291cac@swan.bollow.ch> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> <20131017091705.2f291cac@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0C925836-6954-4A57-B292-6B46D9180B13@acm.org> hi, I would rather put it that: a form that does not incorporate principles of participatory democracy is not multistakeholder. Your question is a bit loaded by using the word 'deserve'. I am not making an axiological judgement or speaking of merit. In my work on multistakeholder models and definitions, I have become convinced that if it isn't attempting to foster greater participatory democratic participation, leaving aside the degree to which it may or may not be succeeding at any particular moment or according to any single judge, it isn't a multistakeholder model. For me, participatory democracy that incorporates other forms of democracy including representative democracy where appropriate, is the holy grail that many efforts that have come to be called multistakeholder are trying to achieve. Certainly I would not define as multistakeholder any effort for which this wasn't a fundamental goal. This is part of my love/hate relationship with ICANN. Sometimes I am sure that this is exactly what we are about - though only succeeding partially. And at other times, I think we forget that this is our fundamental mission until someone points out that we have lost our way and we correct our course. avri On 17 Oct 2013, at 00:17, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Hi Avri > > Do in your view all forms of multistakeholderism deserve to be > considered a “a form” of democracy? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think that one reason the form of participatory democracy we are >> calling multistakeholderism (MSism) is not uniform in that there are >> many ways in which it can be expressed. >> >> I do not think we will find a single definition. And even if we >> could, even if there was just one modality for MSism, just one way to >> implement the multistakeholder model ,it would be something that is >> still in development and discovery. >> >> But I do not beleive there is a single way to implement a >> multistakeholder model, and I don't beleive any existing organization >> has the perfect exemplar - though there may be one I don't know of >> either in Internet governance or some other field and though several >> of those still in the crucible of real life deployment attempting >> real world management and regulatory functions do show promise, in my >> opinion. >> >> It is a relatively new trend in world history and in the development >> of democracy - less that few score years at the most. It is a form >> that I beleive is built upon the modern world's ability to >> communicate across cultures and to travel freely across borders. >> >> I think as we gain more experience and do more study on the variety >> of multistakeholder models we will discover characteristics that all >> forms of the model must have. >> >> I think the points you make below are all part of the framework for >> any definition. And I think there is value in trying to scope out >> the framework, starting with the things that no governance system >> that wants to call itself multistakeholder can do without. >> >> I think your list of questions is the start of a good question set. >> >> I also think that BestBits spending time on this is a good idea, as >> long as it does not try to define one form, or as long as it does not >> create a strawman that allows people to discount the ongoing real >> life efforts to develop participatory democracy in governance. If we >> develop a system purely for the reason of furthering people's attacks >> on the existing efforts at the multistakeholder model, I think it >> will be counterproductive, at best. >> >> avri >> >> Note: I would make the point that it is even harder to define civil >> society than it is to define MSism. but given that I self identify >> as a member of both civil society and the technical community, I >> strongly agree about the commonality of many goals. >> >> >> On 16 Oct 2013, at 09:25, John Curran wrote: >> >>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day >>>> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet >>>> policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly >>>> for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass >>>> government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation >>>> of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes >>>> underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, >>>> plus more >>> >>> I note on the agenda is the item "What is >>> multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with respect to matters of >>> Internet coordination/governance) >>> >>> As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that >>> everyone is using the term in the same manner, and documenting the >>> meaning of the term with some clarity might be very helpful in the >>> coming days (particularly if it were to be defined from the civil >>> society perspective) >>> >>> In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: >>> >>> - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or >>> common purpose? >>> >>> - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all >>> interested parties? >>> >>> - Documents and materials made freely available online to all >>> parties? >>> >>> - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide >>> consideration of all inputs/views? >>> >>> - Respect for all participants involved? >>> >>> If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term >>> "multi-stakeholder" (in matters of Internet >>> coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term >>> does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more >>> solid set of principles regarding its use. If this suggestion is >>> not aligned with your present plans or goals for the meeting, feel >>> free to discard it as desired. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via >>> multi-stakeholder processes (unless one credits various portions of >>> my consciousness with independent stakeholder status... ;-) >>> >>> >>> >> > > -------------- 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 17 04:18:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:48:06 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> Message-ID: <525F9D3E.3070805@itforchange.net> While we can do general polito-cultural discussions on various forms of participatory democracy as they express at various levels in our societies, and whether MSism is also the same thing or not, we also have certain clear political imperatives here. And BestBits group is oriented towards outcomes that specifically contribute to political developments or landscape around us. This does require convergent efforts while exploring divergent meaning and perspectives. To that extent, perhaps one, if not 'the', core question for BB meeting's session could be as follows When we seek that Internet governance processes, at national and global levels, should be multistakeholder, what do we really mean - in relatively concrete terms. This in general, but also as being specifically situated in the current landscape of where we are with global IG - and perhaps separately in different areas, like technical policy processes, public policy processes, soft law, hard law, principles development and the such.... A lot of policy makers, including from the North, directly ask us, MSism is fine, but what is it that you want in terms of processes.... And I can assure you that what they think as limits of MSism is quite different from what many here think.... So good to know and talk about these things. A lot of MS related discussion has simply happened in obscurity with regard to real meanings and implications.. parminder On Thursday 17 October 2013 12:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think that one reason the form of participatory democracy we are calling multistakeholderism (MSism) is not uniform in that there are many ways in which it can be expressed. > > I do not think we will find a single definition. And even if we could, even if there was just one modality for MSism, just one way to implement the multistakeholder model ,it would be something that is still in development and discovery. > > But I do not beleive there is a single way to implement a multistakeholder model, and I don't beleive any existing organization has the perfect exemplar - though there may be one I don't know of either in Internet governance or some other field and though several of those still in the crucible of real life deployment attempting real world management and regulatory functions do show promise, in my opinion. > > It is a relatively new trend in world history and in the development of democracy - less that few score years at the most. It is a form that I beleive is built upon the modern world's ability to communicate across cultures and to travel freely across borders. > > I think as we gain more experience and do more study on the variety of multistakeholder models we will discover characteristics that all forms of the model must have. > > I think the points you make below are all part of the framework for any definition. And I think there is value in trying to scope out the framework, starting with the things that no governance system that wants to call itself multistakeholder can do without. > > I think your list of questions is the start of a good question set. > > I also think that BestBits spending time on this is a good idea, as long as it does not try to define one form, or as long as it does not create a strawman that allows people to discount the ongoing real life efforts to develop participatory democracy in governance. If we develop a system purely for the reason of furthering people's attacks on the existing efforts at the multistakeholder model, I think it will be counterproductive, at best. > > avri > > Note: I would make the point that it is even harder to define civil society than it is to define MSism. but given that I self identify as a member of both civil society and the technical community, I strongly agree about the commonality of many goals. > > > On 16 Oct 2013, at 09:25, John Curran wrote: > >> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more >> I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with >> respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance) >> >> As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone is using the >> term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with some >> clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it were to be defined >> from the civil society perspective) >> >> In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: >> >> - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common purpose? >> >> - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all interested parties? >> >> - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties? >> >> - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide consideration of all inputs/views? >> >> - Respect for all participants involved? >> >> If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term "multi-stakeholder" >> (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term >> does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid set of principles >> regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your present plans or goals for >> the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired. >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via multi-stakeholder >> processes (unless one credits various portions of my consciousness >> with independent stakeholder status... ;-) >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 17 08:19:45 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:19:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the Internet". The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for a surprise very soon. :) fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/17/2013 02:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Brenden, read with interest. I particularly noted “Let us also not > forget that ICANN and its oversight are the main topic of the meeting”. > > Is there some specific background to this claim? Is this really a > conference specifically about ICANN oversight (and if it is, do we > really think that is a good idea given other current issues?) > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Brenden Kuerbis > *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:20 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > ; Mawaki Chango > > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Norbert Bollow > ; Anja Kovacs > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Hello, > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > > > > > 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including > CS proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both > President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. > > > > Apologies for the cross-post. > > I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond > asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and > to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed > agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move > ICANN away from unilateral oversight: > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ > > > > > --------------------------------------- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > > I do want to > > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and > > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. > > *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. > > > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points > > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the > consensus > > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have > expressed > > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I > think it > > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been > > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. > > The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained > opposition”. > That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are > strongly > in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain > opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend > political > capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a > decision > in favor. > > Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not > expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a > consensus decision from being reached. > > If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in > favor, most > organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would > never > reach any decisions. > > > we are effectively working against each other here. > > Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in > some of > the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to > discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some > action, I > strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working > against each other here”. > > In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will > co-sign it > does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits > action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first > letter it > could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits > letter it > could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do > understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. > > > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an > > alternative. If that could be a solution for all > > No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since > I've > already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present > letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat > them again. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Oct 17 10:22:50 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:22:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> On Oct 17, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will > probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the > Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the > Internet". > > The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this > huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for > a surprise very soon. :) I have no knowledge of what the agenda for the Rio meeting will be, but note that these are two distinct items in the Montevideo Statement - (1) - They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. This would appear to be similar to "forms and ways to achieve pluriparticipative international Internet governance" (2) They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. This would appear to be similar to moving "ICANN away from unilateral oversight", as noted by Brenden. I imagine that both topics will enjoy significant discussion at the meeting. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Absence of an agenda does not equate to lack of an agenda... From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 17 10:39:30 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:39:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> Message-ID: <525FF6A2.4000508@cafonso.ca> Actually, no one knows details of the agenda so far, of course (and the IGF might be a good opportunity to advance on this) -- we know only the scope from the point of view of the BR gov as expressed by Rousseff. frt rgds --c.a. On 10/17/2013 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 17, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will >> probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve >> pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the >> Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the >> Internet". >> >> The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this >> huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for >> a surprise very soon. :) > > I have no knowledge of what the agenda for the Rio meeting will be, but > note that these are two distinct items in the Montevideo Statement - > > (1) - They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > > This would appear to be similar to "forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance" > > (2) They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. > > This would appear to be similar to moving "ICANN away from > unilateral oversight", as noted by Brenden. > > I imagine that both topics will enjoy significant discussion at > the meeting. > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. Absence of an agenda does not equate > to lack of an agenda... > From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 17 10:41:54 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:41:54 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] You said MSism? [was Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants] In-Reply-To: <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 17 12:00:54 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:30:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Fadi_Cheha?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?d=E9=3A_Affirmation_of_Commitments_needs_to_become_contrac?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?t_between_=27ICANN_and_you=27?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <526009B6.2010009@itforchange.net> The clearest statement I have heard till now from ICANN that US oversight is not acceptable... and that FoC is but a US gov contract Much more than what many of the civil society are ready to say or commit to. However, it is easier to talk about a contract between ICANN and people than to come up with the actual means and processes of such a (social) contract. But good to state the principles that then opens up thinking and possible concrete proposals. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Internet Policy] Fadi Chehadé: Affirmation of Commitments needs to become contract between 'ICANN and you' Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:16:00 +0530 From: Vinay Kesari To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org Dear all, Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, spoke this evening at the Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013 in New Delhi, and made some very interesting statements, including the following (which I paraphrase): * The Affirmation of Commitments needs to change from being a contract between ICANN and the US Government, to a contract between 'ICANN and you'. * The handling of the IANA function needs to be structured in keeping with the idea that it is the 'root of the world' rather than of any one country. * ICANN headquarters would be split between Los Angeles, Istanbul and Singapore, and hiring in Los Angeles is to be frozen. I will post links to the video from the event as soon as it is up, as well as a more detailed report on his other remarks, including on Brazil, the role of industry, and multilateralism. Regards, Vinay Kesari https://twitter.com/vinaykesari -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 17 12:02:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:32:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Fadi_Cheha?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?d=E9=3A_Affirmation_of_Commitments_needs_to_become_contrac?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?t_between_=27ICANN_and_you=27?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <526009FF.7070400@itforchange.net> Please see below - a forward from an ISOC list. The clearest statement I have heard till now from ICANN that US oversight is not acceptable... and that FoC is but a US gov contract Much more than what many of the civil society are ready to say or commit to. However, it is easier to talk about a contract between ICANN and people than to come up with the actual means and processes of such a (social) contract. But good to state the principles that then opens up thinking and possible concrete proposals. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Internet Policy] Fadi Chehadé: Affirmation of Commitments needs to become contract between 'ICANN and you' Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:16:00 +0530 From: Vinay Kesari To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org Dear all, Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, spoke this evening at the Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013 in New Delhi, and made some very interesting statements, including the following (which I paraphrase): * The Affirmation of Commitments needs to change from being a contract between ICANN and the US Government, to a contract between 'ICANN and you'. * The handling of the IANA function needs to be structured in keeping with the idea that it is the 'root of the world' rather than of any one country. * ICANN headquarters would be split between Los Angeles, Istanbul and Singapore, and hiring in Los Angeles is to be frozen. I will post links to the video from the event as soon as it is up, as well as a more detailed report on his other remarks, including on Brazil, the role of industry, and multilateralism. Regards, Vinay Kesari https://twitter.com/vinaykesari -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 5 07:51:57 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 17:21:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session In-Reply-To: <8412B7D1-7595-484C-B27B-AD6F043C5004@apc.org> References: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org> <8EA84850-3108-4E17-897E-1C402FF26763@uzh.ch> <8412B7D1-7595-484C-B27B-AD6F043C5004@apc.org> Message-ID: <524FFD5D.3040102@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 02 October 2013 07:35 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Dear all, > > A brief response from Bytes for All, Pakistan and APC on the > intervention by Pakistan at the HRC24. > http://www.apc.org/en/node/18573 Hi Valeria You rightly observed in your earlier email that this is the first time a set of countries have raised the NSA surveillance issue in the HRC. (And APC has long advocated that HRC is the right place for many if not most global IG issues.) In the circumstances, such a harsh response to the concerned statement against NSA snooping is quite surprising. Well, as an aside, one can be opportunistic on the occasion of such pious statements to point towards the domestic HR record of the complaining countries. Fair enough... (Although we fail to say such things when US makes pious statement in favour of multistakeholderism, transparency etc, not immediately pointing to TPP, ACTA, and other venues of global IG in which US is such a key player, and their entire lack of transparency or MSism. We should just be consistent. At Baku, for instance, several civil society actors sat on numerous panels where US mouthed things about MSism, transparency etc, without murmuring a word about US' record in other IG spaces, and at home. Why this partial treatment to the US?). What I find quite surprising is the concern expressed in the APC statement against the call for "/development of an international mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward/", when APC had joined others to roundly applaud President of Brazil's recent UN statement which inter alia calls for "establishment of a civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet". If there is any essential difference between the two calls, I missed it, and am happy to be enlightened. The APC statement decries - "The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and agreed by governments – and therefore being a top down and central mechanism – contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of policy making, as well as the end to end principles of internet architecture that are essential to a free and open internet. " Well, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a framework determined and agreed by governments.... Whereas, all proposals for a new global IG framework do seem to come with much much more participative avenues then were available when UDHR came about.... APC statement says " creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy will not be sustainable, or effective. The internet touches on so many issues that no single policy space could ever effectively deal with them all." Wonder then what is the logic of creating a single policy-participation space (which btw now wants to be much more than that) for global IG in the form of IGF..... How is it that the logic that works for creating an integral single Internet policy space like the IGF fails for other levels of Internet policy making processes... I could not understand this. Would like a clarification. Also, any effort to develop a new Internet policy space is to look at issues that do not have a home at present (clearly recognised in the Tunis agenda and the recent BestBits statement on EC) and to coordinated Internet-relevant work of other agencies. No one is proposing that any issue that but touches the Internet (today, most issues do) should be withdrawn from all relevant agencies and given to the proposed new body. This is a complete mis- representation of any such proposal from any developing country. And then, the recommendation is "Bytes for All, Pakistan and APC believe that a distributed governance with concrete and effective multi-stakeholder mechanisms of participation in decision making is a way with great potential for strengthening an open and free internet." This recommendation will be useful if we knew what exactly is the referred distributed governance system. And before we get on to this discussion can we please agree to discuss technical/ logical governance issues (ICANN plus system) as different from larger social, economic, political and cultural public policy issues, as was agreed by the BestBits statement on Enhanced Cooperation to which APC signed.... I really have nothing to say about the distributed systems of technical governance - meaning ICANN plus system. Lets accept it as it is. Lets talk about other global IG issues, the present HRC statement also being in such a regard. My main question in that respect is; what does APC/ Bytes consider as a distributed governance system in terms of these larger public policy issues pertaining to the global governance of the Internet? Is APC proposing a new system(s) of this kind - in which case we will like to know what does it look like? Or is APC pointing to some existing systems? Is is about the OECD, TPP, ACTA, Cyberspace conference series, etc, kind of global IG systems that it calls as a distributed system? If not, which ones? If we knew more about the preferred model of distributed governance of the Internet recommended by APC/Bytes, we will be able to discuss it here. (But, no ICANN here please, we already agreed to agree on that system, as it is, and for the tasks it accomplishes.) Thanks. parminder > > Best, > > Valeria > > > On 20/09/2013, at 14:07, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Robert >> >> You didn't see the text circulated here the other day proposing an >> intergovernmental declaration on harmony? >> >> Apparently it was quickly withdrawn (there may be an interesting >> story here) and there will now be a meeting summary doc instead. >> >> Bill >> >> On Sep 20, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Robert Guerra >> wrote: >> >>> Interesting Indonesia joined pack of like minded countries. Will be >>> interesting if they try to advance a document or statement at the >>> high level meeting in Bali. >>> >>> Robert >>> -- >>> R. Guerra >>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>> >>> On 2013-09-20, at 11:39 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Sharing this information with you all. >>>> >>>> Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Uganda, >>>> Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and China, highlighted >>>> at HRC24 the need to protect the right to privacy as an essential >>>> element of free expression, citing the International Covenant on >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and La Rue’s report. The >>>> statement explicitly criticized the role of major international >>>> internet and telecommunication technology companies in violating >>>> privacy. It also explicitly made the links between the allegations >>>> of mass state surveillance and the need for reforming global >>>> internet governance. To quote the statement directly: >>>> >>>> "The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum >>>> established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on Information >>>> Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to deliver the desired >>>> results. A strategic rethinking of the global internet governance >>>> mechanism is inevitable. Further development of an international >>>> mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS >>>> Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward. However we will need to >>>> be sincere in our efforts to ensure a transparent, free, fair and >>>> respectful international intergovernmental mechanism of internet >>>> governance and one that also ensures the right to privacy." >>>> >>>> The full intervention by Pakistan is available at >>>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Valeria >>> >> > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 17 13:33:38 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:33:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> Message-ID: At 16:22 17/10/2013, John Curran wrote: >I have no knowledge of what the agenda for the Rio meeting will be, >but note that these are two distinct items in the Montevideo Statement - Dear John, there are always two faces to a coin. I am quite glad to hear an USSH participative opinon, our eventual decision being to join forces or not. >(1) - They identified the need for ongoing effort to address >Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze >community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global >multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > This would appear to be similar to "forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance" If I had to define myself as an IUser, I would say that I am multistakeholderist and anti-pluriparticipativist, as far as I understand those terms. Also, I understand the concepts of the WSIS and accept that one may lobby to refine a favorably brain washed understanding (in keeping in mind the non-English binding versions) but I have not the singlest idea of what "the community" may be (except the USSH Inc.: the US StakeHolders Incorporated in Montevideo?). A common polynym vocabulary would be of the essence for our global world (or is it the total world? what is the adjective for "whole" as in "the whole is larger than the sum of its parts"?) This should be the first task for an international meeting. >(2) They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA >functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, >including all governments, participate on an equal footing. > This would appear to be similar to moving "ICANN away from > unilateral oversight", as noted by Brenden. Correct: - What USSH wants for three decades (our 1984 opposing agreement, cf. RFC 921) is the IANA under multistakeholder cooperation on an equal footing for every government and ... US coordinated. You know centers in LA and Turkey and Singapore. Everyone can participate ("Public comment periods are provided before final standards approval and adoption" ... by USSH without appeal procedure): pluriparticipatism!=multistakeholderism !!! - ITU wants every Telcos too within the equal footing. Never mind, in case we really get a conflict, the real emergency back-up root is at Public DNS (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4). I am ready to the end of the years old "IANA war": http://googliana.org. - What we want is the IANA to be under concerted multistakeholdership on an equal footing for everyone, including you and me. >I imagine that both topics will enjoy significant discussion at the meeting. Be sure discussions will start before the meeting. Actually, they have started (http://bramsummit.org). jfc From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 17 14:10:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:40:49 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52602829.9020902@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as > offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when > states commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the > best track record when it comes to making itself accountable before > international human rights institutions for its domestic policies > (neither incidentally has t Chinmayi, A digital rights court or some other rights enforcement mechanism is completely at another level than having an anchor agency in the UN system which can take up IG related issues, which alone CIRP was really supposed to be. In any case, to set up such a digital rights enforcement mechanism will need some kind of a prior international agreement that, in the first place, needs an IG related anchor space in the UN system . .... So, even if you want a digital rights enforcement mechanism - which as you rightly observe, I too have sought - then a CIRP kind of body can only enable it... It doesnt go against such a mechanise. If you want such enforcement mechanism in addition to a CIRP like space, then you put that demand as a CIRP plus one..... which is entirely fine with me. However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement mechanism is also of no use, because India would not submit to it.... Well, isnt that a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take towards future of global governance of the Internet. What other option there is to try to get such a enforcement mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to it? Other than perhaps to accept US as the global policemen, a role which it often arrogates to itself, wherever possible. There must be some direction that is the right one for us to go towards, however difficult the path may be. > he US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are > being built in India and that there has been quite a lot of resistance > to government transparency when it comes to blocking or interception Yes, it has to resisted and fought in every way possible. An international regime - starting from a soft one towards increasingly harder ones - as we progress civilisationally - can only help that. On the other hand, I cant see how such a regime can hurt. > (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as > justification for domestic policy). I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But people can say whatever they want, and we cant stop it. parminder > I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as > President Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states > to be accountable to individuals. > > I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to > surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a > surveillance order if you never find out about it. > > Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables > individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the > International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does > not really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a > system in which it is accountable to individuals in an international > human rights forum. > > See you at the IGF :) > Chinmayi > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >> >> We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of >> the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, >> which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom >> House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has >> suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite >> debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in >> opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet >> governance taken by the FOC states. >> >> >> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not >> really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These >> Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of >> telecommunications”) in the end. >> >> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN >> oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that >> her concern seems to be that there should be some accountability >> with respect to human rights, I sympathise. The Indian government >> seems to be in I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite >> correctly that while everybody else was being told off for human >> rights violations, the countries telling them off were also >> committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to >> the idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow >> justify another's (I still would not support the resolution that >> India presented to the UN last year), > > Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human > rights violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference > between US violating rights of people in a situation where it > admits of no avenues of recourse, even at a theoretical -political > level, and when such things happen within a political system which > has its dynamics that can be engaged to avoid or reduce such > violation. CIRP like global governance proposals are about having > a global political regime within which then efforts can be made to > fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political > system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights > violation against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative > different kind, from the very important issue of domestic > surveillances that we all struggle against. > >> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing >> as the best model. > > Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what > 'should be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a > thing. > > Best , parminder >> >> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely >> in terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the >> ITRs debates - that many were stepping away from the actual text >> and merely pointing out who was signing as an argument for not >> signing. Isn't it better to just discuss the specifics of >> treaties and organisations and determine on that basis whether it >> is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? >> >> Best, >> Chinmayi >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> > wrote: >> >> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>> >>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online >>> Coalition , a >>> group of governments committed to advance Internet >>> freedom, it would send a positive message to the >>> international community. Countries that join the coalition >>> endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people >>> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From >>> Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the >>> coalition. On the other hand, other countries that are not >>> members of the coalition, such as Russia, China and India, >>> have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in the >>> past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN >>> General assembly, which would have put in risk Internet >>> governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition >>> would be a turning point and a step in the opposite >>> direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from >>> its partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, >>> India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >>> >> >> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the >> perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United >> States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not >> to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower >> than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from >> the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the >> "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist >> position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm. >> >> -- >> >> *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: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 17 14:22:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:52:02 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff UN speech vrs India CIRP proposal - WAS - OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52602ACA.408@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as > offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when > states commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the > best track record when it comes to making itself accountable before > international human rights institutions for its domestic policies > (neither incidentally has the US). One must bear in mind that domestic > surveillance systems are being built in India and that there has been > quite a lot of resistance to government transparency when it comes to > blocking or interception (it is in this context that the US activities > are sometimes offered as justification for domestic policy). I do not > therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as President > Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states to be > accountable to individuals. Now that is an important point to come to. In fact, I see no real difference between what Rousseff said in her UN speech and what India proposed in the CIRP proposal, other than the obvious fact that the former dealt more with higher level principles and the CIRP proposal with specifics. (There is this relatively minor thing about 'oversight role' of CIRP, a position India was always open about and it its recent WGEC submission does seek to separate oversight part from general public policy issues). I read Rousseff's UN statement again - the principal operational part of it is "The United Nations must play a leading role in the effort to regulate the conduct of States with regard to these technologies". I am happy to hear arguments to the contrary. On the other hand, one of the proposed seven specific tasks of the CIRP was "Promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development". This is similar to Russeff making numerous references to human rights in her speech while the main thrust was /*the need for a new UN mechanism to regulate state conduc//t/*. So, I really think that Rousseff's speech isnt much different from India's CIRP proposal. Maybe, the actual difference is that Brazil has shown guts to make it clear that it means business and is not going to be cowed down by pressure - most strongly shown by the cancellation of US trip which was really really big.... On the other hand, India has clearly been weak kneed, and very vulnerable to all kinds of pressure. External pressure - chiefly from the US, and of a very intense kind. And internal pressure- from the industry, largely ochestrated by US companies, (the chief actor being a US telecom that is quite a villain even within US civil society sector), and unfortunately, also many civil society actors within India who in my view have taken a rather one-sided view about this issue. Now, if you think I being uncharitable to the involved Indian actors here, I am happy to be convinced that Rousseff's UN speech and India's CIRP proposal are really so different for one to be welcomed and celebrated by civil society, and the other, largely, to be considered worthy of nothing but contempt. For me, they are not so different. The only difference is - one, of the timing (but then, India's proposal was active, and Rousseff's speech reactive - and there is something to said in favour of foresight and active approach, and coming up with specific details ) . Second, Brazil clearly looks like it means business, while India, at least some quarters of the establishment, allowed themselves to be browbeaten. In the process, it handed over a crucial geo-political leadership advantage to Brazil... I dont mind much, as long as it it leads to greater global justice - but within India, there would at some time be some analysis if this was not a major lost opportunity. Regards, parminder > > I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to > surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a > surveillance order if you never find out about it. > > Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables > individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the > International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does > not really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a > system in which it is accountable to individuals in an international > human rights forum. > > See you at the IGF :) > Chinmayi > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >> >> We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of >> the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, >> which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom >> House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has >> suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite >> debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in >> opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet >> governance taken by the FOC states. >> >> >> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not >> really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These >> Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of >> telecommunications”) in the end. >> >> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN >> oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that >> her concern seems to be that there should be some accountability >> with respect to human rights, I sympathise. The Indian government >> seems to be in I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite >> correctly that while everybody else was being told off for human >> rights violations, the countries telling them off were also >> committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to >> the idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow >> justify another's (I still would not support the resolution that >> India presented to the UN last year), > > Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human > rights violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference > between US violating rights of people in a situation where it > admits of no avenues of recourse, even at a theoretical -political > level, and when such things happen within a political system which > has its dynamics that can be engaged to avoid or reduce such > violation. CIRP like global governance proposals are about having > a global political regime within which then efforts can be made to > fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political > system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights > violation against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative > different kind, from the very important issue of domestic > surveillances that we all struggle against. > >> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing >> as the best model. > > Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what > 'should be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a > thing. > > Best , parminder >> >> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely >> in terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the >> ITRs debates - that many were stepping away from the actual text >> and merely pointing out who was signing as an argument for not >> signing. Isn't it better to just discuss the specifics of >> treaties and organisations and determine on that basis whether it >> is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? >> >> Best, >> Chinmayi >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> > wrote: >> >> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>> >>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online >>> Coalition , a >>> group of governments committed to advance Internet >>> freedom, it would send a positive message to the >>> international community. Countries that join the coalition >>> endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people >>> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From >>> Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the >>> coalition. On the other hand, other countries that are not >>> members of the coalition, such as Russia, China and India, >>> have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in the >>> past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN >>> General assembly, which would have put in risk Internet >>> governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition >>> would be a turning point and a step in the opposite >>> direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from >>> its partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, >>> India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >>> >> >> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the >> perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United >> States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not >> to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower >> than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from >> the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the >> "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist >> position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm. >> >> -- >> >> *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: From joy at apc.org Thu Oct 17 18:56:27 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:56:27 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: <52602829.9020902@itforchange.net> References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> <52602829.9020902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52606B1B.5040005@apc.org> Hi all - interesting discussion. And thanks for prompting it Eduardo - I really liked your op-ed - i found it a simple call for solidarity in taking an holistic, at home approach to human rights and internet policy in the midst of the global momentum following the Brazil initiative. I note that there will be a session on Day 2 of the best bits meeting on surveillance related issues - this will include a briefing to update on actions being taken to address this issue within the various existing UN human rights mechanisms as well as various national steps for legal remedies. with that in mind, i note that there are civil society groups and diverse human rights defenders from around the world who are taking vigorous actions to challenge and seek accountability within existing mechanisms for this mass surveillance rights violation: their ultimate efficacy will remain to be seen. but it would be unwise to proceed in our IG discussions on the assumption that no such action is being taken or that there will be support for a new "digital rights mechanism" in some other part of the UN because of the horror of this particular rights violation and perceived lack of accountability or prevention mechanisms. The idea of topic specific human rights mechanisms is not new (whether in relation to women's rights, racism, torture, economic, cultural and social rights). But most 'mainstream' human rights defenders and organisations still do not consider the internet a game changer in terms of human rights concepts and systems of accountability and certainly see no need for alternatives - nor do they generally seek them. Instead, strategies for engaging in existing mechanisms are sought - which is what some groups have been doing including APC, EFF, Access, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Sans Frontiers, Freedom House, Privacy International, ISOC among others . I agree with Chinmayi -these systems are only as effective as States let them be, but this, as Parminder says, is no reason not to engage in debate about them. quite the contrary, in my view, this makes it more important for civil society to engage. However, this conceptual divergence (between HR defenders and IG advocates) still remains a significant challenge for those of us in IG debates and proposals for new IG mechanisms that develop will inevitably founder if they proceed to argue for new rights mechanisms without understanding how current ones operate (including improvements that are needed) - or fail to develop strategies for working solidarity so as to make all states accountable for human rights violations - online and offline. Joy On 18/10/2013 7:10 a.m., parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as >> offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when >> states commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the >> best track record when it comes to making itself accountable before >> international human rights institutions for its domestic policies >> (neither incidentally has t > > Chinmayi, > > A digital rights court or some other rights enforcement mechanism is > completely at another level than having an anchor agency in the UN > system which can take up IG related issues, which alone CIRP was > really supposed to be. In any case, to set up such a digital rights > enforcement mechanism will need some kind of a prior international > agreement that, in the first place, needs an IG related anchor space > in the UN system . .... So, even if you want a digital rights > enforcement mechanism - which as you rightly observe, I too have > sought - then a CIRP kind of body can only enable it... It doesnt go > against such a mechanise. If you want such enforcement mechanism in > addition to a CIRP like space, then you put that demand as a CIRP plus > one..... which is entirely fine with me. > > However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement > mechanism is also of no use, because India would not submit to it.... > Well, isnt that a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take towards future > of global governance of the Internet. What other option there is to > try to get such a enforcement mechanism, and try to get all countries > to submit to it? Other than perhaps to accept US as the global > policemen, a role which it often arrogates to itself, wherever > possible. There must be some direction that is the right one for us to > go towards, however difficult the path may be. > > >> he US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are >> being built in India and that there has been quite a lot of >> resistance to government transparency when it comes to blocking or >> interception > > Yes, it has to resisted and fought in every way possible. An > international regime - starting from a soft one towards increasingly > harder ones - as we progress civilisationally - can only help that. On > the other hand, I cant see how such a regime can hurt. > >> (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes offered >> as justification for domestic policy). > > I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But people can > say whatever they want, and we cant stop it. > > > parminder > >> I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light >> as President Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for >> states to be accountable to individuals. > > > > >> >> I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to >> surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a >> surveillance order if you never find out about it. > > >> >> Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables >> individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the >> International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does >> not really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a >> system in which it is accountable to individuals in an international >> human rights forum. >> >> See you at the IGF :) >> Chinmayi >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder > > wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >>> >>> We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of >>> the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, >>> which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom >>> House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has >>> suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is >>> quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in >>> opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet >>> governance taken by the FOC states. >>> >>> >>> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did >>> not really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) >>> says “These Regulations do not address the content-related >>> aspects of telecommunications”) in the end. >>> >>> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN >>> oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that >>> her concern seems to be that there should be some accountability >>> with respect to human rights, I sympathise. The Indian >>> government seems to be in I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out >>> quite correctly that while everybody else was being told off for >>> human rights violations, the countries telling them off were >>> also committing huge violations. While I certainly do not >>> subscribe to the idea that one nation's human rights violations >>> somehow justify another's (I still would not support the >>> resolution that India presented to the UN last year), >> >> Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human >> rights violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference >> between US violating rights of people in a situation where it >> admits of no avenues of recourse, even at a theoretical >> -political level, and when such things happen within a political >> system which has its dynamics that can be engaged to avoid or >> reduce such violation. CIRP like global governance proposals are >> about having a global political regime within which then efforts >> can be made to fight for our rights, the way we do within the >> Indian political system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one >> country doing rights violation against another country doing it. >> It is of a qualitative different kind, from the very important >> issue of domestic surveillances that we all struggle against. >> >>> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept >>> do-nothing as the best model. >> >> Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what >> 'should be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a >> thing. >> >> Best , parminder >>> >>> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely >>> in terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with >>> the ITRs debates - that many were stepping away from the actual >>> text and merely pointing out who was signing as an argument for >>> not signing. Isn't it better to just discuss the specifics of >>> treaties and organisations and determine on that basis whether >>> it is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? >>> >>> Best, >>> Chinmayi >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> > wrote: >>> >>> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>> >>>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online >>>> Coalition , a >>>> group of governments committed to advance Internet >>>> freedom, it would send a positive message to the >>>> international community. Countries that join the coalition >>>> endorse a statement supporting the principle that all >>>> people enjoy the same human rights online as they do >>>> offline. From Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are >>>> part of the coalition. On the other hand, other countries >>>> that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia, >>>> China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. >>>> For example, in the past, they have presented draft >>>> resolutions to the UN General assembly, which would have >>>> put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the >>>> Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a >>>> step in the opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes >>>> some distance from its partners in groups such as the BRIC >>>> (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil >>>> and South Africa). >>>> >>> >>> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the >>> perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United >>> States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. >>> Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point >>> lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that >>> the "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow >>> from the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the >>> "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist >>> position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *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: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 17 20:40:02 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 01:40:02 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Fadi?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Chehad=E9=3A_Affirmation_of_Commitments_needs_to_become?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_contract_between_=27ICANN_and_you=27?= In-Reply-To: <526009FF.7070400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I sat in the same meeting in Delhi and here's my additional comments Fadi said: Trust in the internet has been "punctured" by recent events To rebuild a safe and secure internet would require a new form of multi stakeholder governance No one country should have disproportionate power and the internet no longer belongs to the US/the West The internet needs co-operation more than governance For the internet to work all parties need to work together on an equal footing – governments, business, CS and scientists He spoke about needing to find a place to discuss "orphan" issues and that decision making could be multi-stakeholder if new methods of working were used. (By orphan issues he seemed to mean net neutrality, IP liability etc but this was not clear) The Indian Communications Minister Sibal then said inter-governmentalism would not work (quoting climate change negotiations) and that Cyberspace requires a new form of administration in which not just governments were stakeholders And that there was a need to find a way of establishing consensus based multi-stakeholderism and a reformed ICANN central to that. However Indian officials who spoke later ,including Deputy National Security Advisor Sandhu, talked about a multi-lateral, transparent and democratic form of governance, or balancing multi stakeholderism with multi lateralism So some confusion there. I did not have a sense, born out in the subsequent Q&A that Fadi has any idea what the new legal basis for ICANN might be (a Swiss NGO?) or that he has any concrete ideas for a new structure of governance. I'd say he has lit the blue touch paper and is waiting to see what blows up. But he emphasised, after questions, that President Rouseff is also looking for a multi-stakeholder solution and not an inter governmental, UN route to solve the problem. This was repeated throughout the day. So the way is open for new ideas to put on the table. I asked him if a strengthened IGF could be part of the overall reform of the environment and he agreed though did not elaborate except to say that he did not envisage creating new institutions. Some people speculated that he saw ICANN as having a role in taking on the "orphan" issues. Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at gp-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk From: "parminder at itforchange.net" > Date: Thursday, 17 October 2013 17:02 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, "" > Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fadi Chehadé: Affirmation of Commitments needs to become contract between 'ICANN and you' Please see below - a forward from an ISOC list. The clearest statement I have heard till now from ICANN that US oversight is not acceptable... and that FoC is but a US gov contract Much more than what many of the civil society are ready to say or commit to. However, it is easier to talk about a contract between ICANN and people than to come up with the actual means and processes of such a (social) contract. But good to state the principles that then opens up thinking and possible concrete proposals. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Internet Policy] Fadi Chehadé: Affirmation of Commitments needs to become contract between 'ICANN and you' Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:16:00 +0530 From: Vinay Kesari To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org Dear all, Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, spoke this evening at the Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013 in New Delhi, and made some very interesting statements, including the following (which I paraphrase): * The Affirmation of Commitments needs to change from being a contract between ICANN and the US Government, to a contract between 'ICANN and you'. * The handling of the IANA function needs to be structured in keeping with the idea that it is the 'root of the world' rather than of any one country. * ICANN headquarters would be split between Los Angeles, Istanbul and Singapore, and hiring in Los Angeles is to be frozen. I will post links to the video from the event as soon as it is up, as well as a more detailed report on his other remarks, including on Brazil, the role of industry, and multilateralism. Regards, Vinay Kesari https://twitter.com/vinaykesari -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Thu Oct 17 23:15:22 2013 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:45:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: <52602829.9020902@itforchange.net> References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> <52602829.9020902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > > However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement mechanism is > also of no use, because India would not submit to it.... Well, isnt that a > somewhat fatalistic attitude to take towards future of global governance of > the Internet. What other option there is to try to get such a enforcement > mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to it? This would have been better done if you had avoided interpreting what I am saying, and just quoted me as is your usual custom. I believe what I said was: "Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a system in which it is accountable to individuals in an international human rights forum." I don't think that it was fatalistic or a refusal to discuss this further. It is an effort to contribute to the discussion - I think that models which rest completely on unrealistic assumptions about what governments will do (note that this does not mean that we need to assume the opposite) only mean that the models will fail. So discussions of international digital rights fora cannot completely ignore the way in which the US and India see their sovereignty in other international human rights fora. Having acknowledged this, I am very happy to engage further, and look for ways in which governments can be incentivised to consent to some accountability, whether through general human rights institutions or specialised digital rights institutions. As far as CIRP is concerned, if we both agree that it was not a digital rights enforcement mechanism proposal, I think it is fair for me to say that it would not have created immediate accountability of states to individuals. Whether it would have inevitably resulted in the creation of a digital rights enforcement mechanism is a much longer conversation, that we can save for Bali. On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:40 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as > offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when states > commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the best track > record when it comes to making itself accountable before international > human rights institutions for its domestic policies (neither incidentally > has t > > > Chinmayi, > > A digital rights court or some other rights enforcement mechanism is > completely at another level than having an anchor agency in the UN system > which can take up IG related issues, which alone CIRP was really supposed > to be. In any case, to set up such a digital rights enforcement mechanism > will need some kind of a prior international agreement that, in the first > place, needs an IG related anchor space in the UN system . .... So, even if > you want a digital rights enforcement mechanism - which as you rightly > observe, I too have sought - then a CIRP kind of body can only enable it... > It doesnt go against such a mechanise. If you want such enforcement > mechanism in addition to a CIRP like space, then you put that demand as a > CIRP plus one..... which is entirely fine with me. > > However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement mechanism is > also of no use, because India would not submit to it.... Well, isnt that a > somewhat fatalistic attitude to take towards future of global governance of > the Internet. What other option there is to try to get such a enforcement > mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to it? Other than perhaps > to accept US as the global policemen, a role which it often arrogates to > itself, wherever possible. There must be some direction that is the right > one for us to go towards, however difficult the path may be. > > > he US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are > being built in India and that there has been quite a lot of resistance to > government transparency when it comes to blocking or interception > > > Yes, it has to resisted and fought in every way possible. An international > regime - starting from a soft one towards increasingly harder ones - as we > progress civilisationally - can only help that. On the other hand, I cant > see how such a regime can hurt. > > > (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as > justification for domestic policy). > > > I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But people can say > whatever they want, and we cant stop it. > > > parminder > > I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as President > Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states to be > accountable to individuals. > > > > > > > I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to > surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a surveillance > order if you never find out about it. > > > > > Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables > individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the > International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not > really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a system in > which it is accountable to individuals in an international human rights > forum. > > See you at the IGF :) > Chinmayi > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >> >> We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the >>> Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a >>> full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >>> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA >>> revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take >>> in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by >>> the FOC states. >> >> >> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not >> really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These >> Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of >> telecommunications”) in the end. >> >> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN >> oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that her concern >> seems to be that there should be some accountability with respect to human >> rights, I sympathise. The Indian government seems to be in I-told-you-so >> mode now, pointing out quite correctly that while everybody else was being >> told off for human rights violations, the countries telling them off were >> also committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to the >> idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow justify another's (I >> still would not support the resolution that India presented to the UN last >> year), >> >> >> Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human rights >> violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference between US >> violating rights of people in a situation where it admits of no avenues of >> recourse, even at a theoretical -political level, and when such things >> happen within a political system which has its dynamics that can be engaged >> to avoid or reduce such violation. CIRP like global governance proposals >> are about having a global political regime within which then efforts can be >> made to fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political >> system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights violation >> against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative different kind, >> from the very important issue of domestic surveillances that we all >> struggle against. >> >> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing as >> the best model. >> >> >> Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what 'should >> be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a thing. >> >> Best , parminder >> >> >> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely in >> terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the ITRs debates >> - that many were stepping away from the actual text and merely pointing out >> who was signing as an argument for not signing. Isn't it better to just >> discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and determine on that >> basis whether it is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? >> >> Best, >> Chinmayi >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>> >>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition, >>> a group of governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send >>> a positive message to the international community. Countries that join the >>> coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people >>> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin America, >>> only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other hand, >>> other countries that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia, >>> China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in >>> the past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly, >>> which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the >>> Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the >>> opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from its >>> partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and >>> IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >>> >>> >>> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of >>> India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the >>> Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a >>> full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >>> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA >>> revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take >>> in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by >>> the FOC states. Hmm. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *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: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 17 23:43:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:43:08 +0800 Subject: Fwd: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Fadi_Che?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?had=E9=3A_Affirmation_of_Commitments_needs_to_become_contr?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?act_between_=27ICANN_and_you=27?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 18 Oct 2013, at 8:40 am, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > So the way is open for new ideas to put on the table. I asked him if a strengthened IGF could be part of the overall reform of the environment and he agreed though did not elaborate except to say that he did not envisage creating new institutions. Some people speculated that he saw ICANN as having a role in taking on the "orphan" issues. From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 18 00:33:29 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:33:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] "Indications" of "a new re-energised version of the multi-stakeholder coalition" (was Re: Fadi...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131018063329.70842255@swan.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >From the Australian IGF see this article - not a good one, but at > >the end it says: > Indeed there are indications this group will be announcing a new > re-energised version of the multi-stakeholder coalition in a matter > of weeks. > > http://m.theage.com.au/it-pro/it-opinion/battle-for-control-of-the-internet-heats-up-20131017-hv23h.html Hmm... what “indications” precisely might be meant there??? > So it is urgent that we articulate our own vision at Best Bits. If we > do nothing else in those two days, we must do that. +1 Greetings, Norbert From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 02:24:26 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:24:26 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] "Indications" of "a new re-energised version of the multi-stakeholder coalition" (was Re: Fadi...) In-Reply-To: <20131018063329.70842255@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131018063329.70842255@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0A4CF7DB-AC07-4F49-8FCC-D8B5EAFB9D29@gmail.com> +1 Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>> From the Australian IGF see this article - not a good one, but at >>> the end it says: >> Indeed there are indications this group will be announcing a new >> re-energised version of the multi-stakeholder coalition in a matter >> of weeks. >> >> http://m.theage.com.au/it-pro/it-opinion/battle-for-control-of-the-internet-heats-up-20131017-hv23h.html > > Hmm... what “indications” precisely might be meant there??? > >> So it is urgent that we articulate our own vision at Best Bits. If we >> do nothing else in those two days, we must do that. > > +1 > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 18 03:10:03 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:10:03 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Bali visa on arrival etc Message-ID: <04A195D8-D367-4DEB-A2AF-EBFD4908E923@glocom.ac.jp> Visa on arrival, US$25 and various other currencies accepted, see attached picture. Looks like no credit cards. Airport seems to be at its busiest from around 8pm (just the local rumor). Long lines for the visa when I arrived last night, 30 minutes+ then longer wait for immigration procedure. Straight forward process but busy. Conference center is large, spacious. Rooms are permanent structures with solid walls. Common areas with weak aircon, rooms might be chilled, but not fully set-up yet so no idea what they will be like next week (be prepared.) Power strips in all workshop rooms and mainly european round 2 pin, with occasional universal. My hotel has universal power sockets. Weather is hot and sweaty. There are mosquitos. Nusa Dua is like a very large gated campus, conference center and a number of hotels inside. Shops inside, but more expensive than the mini-mart/k-mart etc outside. All good. Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: visa on arrival.JPG Type: image/jpg Size: 98765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon Oct 7 17:24:41 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 23:24:41 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Policy request Input for the IGF In-Reply-To: <381486F3-8F8B-4D54-A79A-67AF6B5FCB25@acm.org> References: <381486F3-8F8B-4D54-A79A-67AF6B5FCB25@acm.org> Message-ID: <52532699.1000001@apc.org> Dear Avri and all Here are the questions we drafted for the human rights, freedom of expression and free flow of information session focus session: 1. What are/have been the main themes of human rights dimensions of internet public policy making in 2013? What are the key strategies and actions for responding to these themes? 2. What is working well to promote human rights, freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the internet? What are areas for concern? 3. The HRC adopted a milestone resolution in which governments agreed that the same HR apply online as offline. Do all stakeholders agree with this core concept? What is the relevance of this resolution to internet public policy making? What has been the impact of the revelations of wide-spread mass surveillance been on taking the implications of this resolution forward? 4. How can all stakeholders, taking their different roles and responsibilities into account, respect, protect and promote human rights in internet related public policy making nationally, regionally and globally? We also want to include the following questions at opportune moments: 1. What are the top 3 human rights issues that civil society would like to raise with the private sector? And with governments? 2. What are the main HR concerns government has about role of business and the technical community in human rights and policy making? What would like the see from civil society? 3. What HR concerns is the technical community most concerned about it, and what response would it like to see from business and governments and civil society? 4. How does the academic community see its role in responding to human rights responsibilities of government and business? 5. How can progress best be made on human rights and internet public policy concerns of all stakeholders? Comments very welcome and needed. Anriette On 26/09/2013 17:07, Avri Doria wrote: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/request-for-public-input-shaping-the-discussions > > Request for public input - Shaping the discussions > Dear IGF Community Members, > > We are asking for your input to help shape the IGF discussions in a meaningful way. You may recall that the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF in its report identified the development of tangible outcomes as a way for the IGF to continue to perform successfully its intended role of addressing issues related to public policy in a bottom-up, multistakeholder fashion. The Working Group stated that "to focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates on these questions, with special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed at capacity-building, should be stated in the outcome documentation". > > This recommendation provides an excellent opportunity for the IGF community to engage in the process of shaping and formulating the questions that will guide the discussions during the various main and focus sessions. Reflecting on the IGF's mandate for inclusion and transparency, the IGF Secretariat is soliciting the community's views on the type of public policy questions that should be addressed and discussed at this year's IGF main/focus sessions. > > Each stakeholder -- individual or organisation -- is asked to submit no more than three (3) questions for each (or one) of the following sessions: > > - Building Bridges: The role of governments in multistakeholder cooperation; > - Internet Governance principles; > - Principles of multistakeholder cooperation; > - Legal and other frameworks: spam, hacking and cybercrime; > - Internet as an engine for growth and sustainable development; > - Human rights, freedom of expression, free flow of information on the Internet; > - Taking stock/Emerging Issues. > > Please note that the deadline for submitting your questions is 9 October. Questions should be sent to igf at unog.ch. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 18 05:40:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:10:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> On Thursday 17 October 2013 05:49 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will > probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the > Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the > Internet". > > The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this > huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for > a surprise very soon. :) This fact of ICANN's remit being a small part of the global IG ecology, and much else being in the need of even more urgent examination and 'meaningful' change, should be an important consideration here. This may mean that ICANN should not be promoted as a co-host or co-owner of the proposed summit, but just an important party that is closely involved. After all the current, post Snowden, crisis, as well as the corresponding outrage in Brazil, comes from entirely different quarters. In the circumstance, focussing the proposed summit just, or even largely, on ICANN oversight or independence will be inappropriate. parminder > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/17/2013 02:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Hi Brenden, read with interest. I particularly noted “Let us also not >> forget that ICANN and its oversight are the main topic of the meeting”. >> >> Is there some specific background to this claim? Is this really a >> conference specifically about ICANN oversight (and if it is, do we >> really think that is a good idea given other current issues?) >> >> Ian Peter >> >> *From:* Brenden Kuerbis >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:20 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> ; Mawaki Chango >> >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Norbert Bollow >> ; Anja Kovacs >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Hello, >> >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including >> CS proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both >> President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. >> >> >> >> Apologies for the cross-post. >> >> I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond >> asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and >> to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed >> agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move >> ICANN away from unilateral oversight: >> >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------- >> Brenden Kuerbis >> Internet Governance Project >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: >> >> Anja Kovacs > > wrote: >> >> > I do want to >> > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and >> > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. >> >> *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. >> >> > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points >> > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the >> consensus >> > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have >> expressed >> > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I >> think it >> > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been >> > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. >> >> The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained >> opposition”. >> That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are >> strongly >> in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain >> opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend >> political >> capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a >> decision >> in favor. >> >> Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not >> expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a >> consensus decision from being reached. >> >> If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in >> favor, most >> organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would >> never >> reach any decisions. >> >> > we are effectively working against each other here. >> >> Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in >> some of >> the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to >> discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some >> action, I >> strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working >> against each other here”. >> >> In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will >> co-sign it >> does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits >> action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first >> letter it >> could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits >> letter it >> could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do >> understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. >> >> > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an >> > alternative. If that could be a solution for all >> >> No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since >> I've >> already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present >> letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat >> them again. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> From avri at ella.com Fri Oct 18 05:41:58 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:41:58 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Bali visa on arrival etc In-Reply-To: <04A195D8-D367-4DEB-A2AF-EBFD4908E923@glocom.ac.jp> References: <04A195D8-D367-4DEB-A2AF-EBFD4908E923@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:10, Adam Peake wrote: > Visa on arrival, US$25 and various other currencies accepted, see attached picture. Looks like no credit cards. > When i got to the Bali airport, there was what looked about a 2 hr line for immigration (or so I was told). This was after the line for buying the visa at the 'visa on arrival' window. But there are nice guys with badges that offer an express service for an extra 25, that avoids the line after buying the visa. So if you get there when the line is long - in my case longer than the zigzag extending down the corridor - i recommend you consider the express service. I did and was happy for it - though i admit i did have ever so slight anxiety just handing over my passport to a guy that walked away and went into a room I could not enter. 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 06:14:51 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:14:51 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <0C925836-6954-4A57-B292-6B46D9180B13@acm.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> <20131017091705.2f291cac@swan.bollow.ch> <0C925836-6954-4A57-B292-6B46D9180B13@acm.org> Message-ID: <000d01cecbeb$0a247e80$1e6d7b80$@gmail.com> Hmmm... Interesting... I've been following these and associated discussions for some time now and this is the first time that I've ever seen the association that you are making below, Avri, between MSism and Participatory Democracy in fact when the subject has been discussed at all, my sense was that most MS advocates treated democracy in whatever manifestation with some contempt. Based on my reading the way in which MSism is usually used in these discussions would I think be diametrically differerent from how I understand PD. PD MSism structured/rule governed decision processes no firm determination/rules of decision processes structured/rule governed processes for inclusion no defined (agreed upon) processes/rules for inclusion equality as between participants equality as between stakeholders groups equality as between participants no determination of relative status of participants within stakeholder groups general acceptance of democratic governance framework MSism seen as alternative form of governance to democracy Mike -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:15 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants hi, I would rather put it that: a form that does not incorporate principles of participatory democracy is not multistakeholder. Your question is a bit loaded by using the word 'deserve'. I am not making an axiological judgement or speaking of merit. In my work on multistakeholder models and definitions, I have become convinced that if it isn't attempting to foster greater participatory democratic participation, leaving aside the degree to which it may or may not be succeeding at any particular moment or according to any single judge, it isn't a multistakeholder model. For me, participatory democracy that incorporates other forms of democracy including representative democracy where appropriate, is the holy grail that many efforts that have come to be called multistakeholder are trying to achieve. Certainly I would not define as multistakeholder any effort for which this wasn't a fundamental goal. This is part of my love/hate relationship with ICANN. Sometimes I am sure that this is exactly what we are about - though only succeeding partially. And at other times, I think we forget that this is our fundamental mission until someone points out that we have lost our way and we correct our course. avri On 17 Oct 2013, at 00:17, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Hi Avri > > Do in your view all forms of multistakeholderism deserve to be > considered a "a form" of democracy? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think that one reason the form of participatory democracy we are >> calling multistakeholderism (MSism) is not uniform in that there are >> many ways in which it can be expressed. >> >> I do not think we will find a single definition. And even if we >> could, even if there was just one modality for MSism, just one way to >> implement the multistakeholder model ,it would be something that is >> still in development and discovery. >> >> But I do not beleive there is a single way to implement a >> multistakeholder model, and I don't beleive any existing organization >> has the perfect exemplar - though there may be one I don't know of >> either in Internet governance or some other field and though several >> of those still in the crucible of real life deployment attempting >> real world management and regulatory functions do show promise, in my >> opinion. >> >> It is a relatively new trend in world history and in the development >> of democracy - less that few score years at the most. It is a form >> that I beleive is built upon the modern world's ability to >> communicate across cultures and to travel freely across borders. >> >> I think as we gain more experience and do more study on the variety >> of multistakeholder models we will discover characteristics that all >> forms of the model must have. >> >> I think the points you make below are all part of the framework for >> any definition. And I think there is value in trying to scope out >> the framework, starting with the things that no governance system >> that wants to call itself multistakeholder can do without. >> >> I think your list of questions is the start of a good question set. >> >> I also think that BestBits spending time on this is a good idea, as >> long as it does not try to define one form, or as long as it does not >> create a strawman that allows people to discount the ongoing real >> life efforts to develop participatory democracy in governance. If we >> develop a system purely for the reason of furthering people's attacks >> on the existing efforts at the multistakeholder model, I think it >> will be counterproductive, at best. >> >> avri >> >> Note: I would make the point that it is even harder to define civil >> society than it is to define MSism. but given that I self identify >> as a member of both civil society and the technical community, I >> strongly agree about the commonality of many goals. >> >> >> On 16 Oct 2013, at 09:25, John Curran wrote: >> >>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day >>>> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet >>>> policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly for >>>> Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass >>>> government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of >>>> Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes >>>> underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, >>>> plus more >>> >>> I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" >>> (presumably with respect to matters of Internet >>> coordination/governance) >>> >>> As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that >>> everyone is using the term in the same manner, and documenting the >>> meaning of the term with some clarity might be very helpful in the >>> coming days (particularly if it were to be defined from the civil >>> society perspective) >>> >>> In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: >>> >>> - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common >>> purpose? >>> >>> - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all >>> interested parties? >>> >>> - Documents and materials made freely available online to all >>> parties? >>> >>> - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide >>> consideration of all inputs/views? >>> >>> - Respect for all participants involved? >>> >>> If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term >>> "multi-stakeholder" (in matters of Internet >>> coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term >>> does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid >>> set of principles regarding its use. If this suggestion is not >>> aligned with your present plans or goals for the meeting, feel free >>> to discard it as desired. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via >>> multi-stakeholder processes (unless one credits various portions of >>> my consciousness with independent stakeholder status... ;-) >>> >>> >>> >> > > From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 18 06:33:13 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:03:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> Message-ID: <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> I agree with John's assessment that Montevideo statement may indeed be aiming at a larger IG ecology than just concerns ICANN plus' remit. Also of interest is Andrew's observations from the Delhi meeting, where there was this talk of getting orphan IG issues - which could be like net neutrality, intellectual property on internet etc - under a multistakeholder kind of arrangement - ICANN based, or otherwise. One always suspected that the multi stakeholder (MS) decision making in technical spaces was to be used and expanded to substantive Internet related public policy areas to then be expanded to all non Internet public policy and governance areas as well... (A recent attempt to develop a World Health Forum within the WHO was defeated largely by progressive global civil society actors in the health area.) And this way, what to my perhaps very opinionated self appears to be, a corporate dominated governance model is taking over tradtional democratic system of public policy making. Others may have different views though. But the good thing is, now that we are clearly faced with the proposition - we all can/ should now clearly express our views if we would like all kinds of substantive public policy issues to be decided by multistakeholder bodies a la ICANN etc, or we are better off with democracy as we know it..... parminder But the good thing is, the real issue is now in the open. On Thursday 17 October 2013 07:52 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 17, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will >> probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve >> pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the >> Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the >> Internet". >> >> The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this >> huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for >> a surprise very soon. :) > I have no knowledge of what the agenda for the Rio meeting will be, but > note that these are two distinct items in the Montevideo Statement - > > (1) - They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > > This would appear to be similar to "forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance" > > (2) They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. > > This would appear to be similar to moving "ICANN away from > unilateral oversight", as noted by Brenden. > > I imagine that both topics will enjoy significant discussion at > the meeting. > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. Absence of an agenda does not equate > to lack of an agenda... > From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 08:48:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 19:48:11 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Blogpost: The Open (Internet) Society and Its Enemies: Can Multistakeholderism Survive "Information Dominance"? Message-ID: <002f01cecc00$50c83f10$f258bd30$@gmail.com> Since I will only be able to participate in a few sessions of BB because of other commitments I've done up a blogpost with some of my thoughts/concerns http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/ http://tinyurl.com/ke9ulqc Mike From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 18 09:08:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:38:42 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> <52602829.9020902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <526132DA.2050803@itforchange.net> On Friday 18 October 2013 08:45 AM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > > However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement > mechanism is also of no use, because India would not submit to > it.... Well, isnt that a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take > towards future of global governance of the Internet. What other > option there is to try to get such a enforcement mechanism, and > try to get all countries to submit to it? > > > This would have been better done if you had avoided interpreting what > I am saying, and just quoted me as is your usual custom. Chinmayi, relax, and just argue your positions without getting personal! > I believe what I said was: "Although I do like your vision of CIRP as > something that enables individual citizens, our country's history with > institutions like the International Criminal Court and the ICCPR > Optional Protocol I does not really offer much hope that India will > ever submit itself to a system in which it is accountable to > individuals in an international human rights forum." There isnt any big interpretative jump from saying that one doesnt see much hope in a proposed institutional mechanism, for the specific purpose in hand, to be taken to suggest that one doesnt see any use in pursing that particular proposal. But if instead you still find such a proposal useful, just say it. parminder > > I don't think that it was fatalistic or a refusal to discuss this > further. It is an effort to contribute to the discussion - I think > that models which rest completely on unrealistic assumptions about > what governments will do (note that this does not mean that we need to > assume the opposite) only mean that the models will fail. So > discussions of international digital rights fora cannot completely > ignore the way in which the US and India see their sovereignty in > other international human rights fora. Having acknowledged this, I am > very happy to engage further, and look for ways in which governments > can be incentivised to consent to some accountability, whether through > general human rights institutions or specialised digital rights > institutions. > > > As far as CIRP is concerned, if we both agree that it was not a > digital rights enforcement mechanism proposal, I think it is fair for > me to say that it would not have created immediate accountability of > states to individuals. Whether it would have inevitably resulted in > the creation of a digital rights enforcement mechanism is a much > longer conversation, that we can save for Bali. > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:40 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as >> offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) >> when states commit human rights violations. India has not exactly >> had the best track record when it comes to making itself >> accountable before international human rights institutions for >> its domestic policies (neither incidentally has t > > Chinmayi, > > A digital rights court or some other rights enforcement mechanism > is completely at another level than having an anchor agency in the > UN system which can take up IG related issues, which alone CIRP > was really supposed to be. In any case, to set up such a digital > rights enforcement mechanism will need some kind of a prior > international agreement that, in the first place, needs an IG > related anchor space in the UN system . .... So, even if you want > a digital rights enforcement mechanism - which as you rightly > observe, I too have sought - then a CIRP kind of body can only > enable it... It doesnt go against such a mechanise. If you want > such enforcement mechanism in addition to a CIRP like space, then > you put that demand as a CIRP plus one..... which is entirely fine > with me. > > However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement > mechanism is also of no use, because India would not submit to > it.... Well, isnt that a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take > towards future of global governance of the Internet. What other > option there is to try to get such a enforcement mechanism, and > try to get all countries to submit to it? Other than perhaps to > accept US as the global policemen, a role which it often arrogates > to itself, wherever possible. There must be some direction that is > the right one for us to go towards, however difficult the path may > be. > > >> he US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems >> are being built in India and that there has been quite a lot of >> resistance to government transparency when it comes to blocking >> or interception > > Yes, it has to resisted and fought in every way possible. An > international regime - starting from a soft one towards > increasingly harder ones - as we progress civilisationally - can > only help that. On the other hand, I cant see how such a regime > can hurt. > > >> (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes >> offered as justification for domestic policy). > > I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But people > can say whatever they want, and we cant stop it. > > > parminder > >> I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as >> President Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for >> states to be accountable to individuals. > > > > >> >> I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to >> surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a >> surveillance order if you never find out about it. > > >> >> Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables >> individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like >> the International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol >> I does not really offer much hope that India will ever submit >> itself to a system in which it is accountable to individuals in >> an international human rights forum. >> >> See you at the IGF :) >> Chinmayi >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >>> >>> We can't overlook that the United States is also a >>> member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention >>> say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower than >>> India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >>> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow >>> from the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was >>> the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the >>> status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by >>> the FOC states. >>> >>> >>> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty >>> did not really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) >>> says “These Regulations do not address the content-related >>> aspects of telecommunications”) in the end. >>> >>> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want >>> UN oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. >>> Given that her concern seems to be that there should be some >>> accountability with respect to human rights, I >>> sympathise. The Indian government seems to be in >>> I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite correctly that >>> while everybody else was being told off for human rights >>> violations, the countries telling them off were also >>> committing huge violations. While I certainly do not >>> subscribe to the idea that one nation's human rights >>> violations somehow justify another's (I still would not >>> support the resolution that India presented to the UN last >>> year), >> >> Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human >> rights violations? Also there is a specific and clear >> difference between US violating rights of people in a >> situation where it admits of no avenues of recourse, even at >> a theoretical -political level, and when such things happen >> within a political system which has its dynamics that can be >> engaged to avoid or reduce such violation. CIRP like global >> governance proposals are about having a global political >> regime within which then efforts can be made to fight for our >> rights, the way we do within the Indian political system. NSA >> issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights >> violation against another country doing it. It is of a >> qualitative different kind, from the very important issue of >> domestic surveillances that we all struggle against. >> >>> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept >>> do-nothing as the best model. >> >> Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about >> what 'should be done', or even the directions towards that >> kind of a thing. >> >> Best , parminder >>> >>> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues >>> purely in terms of who is on which side. This was my >>> discomfort with the ITRs debates - that many were stepping >>> away from the actual text and merely pointing out who was >>> signing as an argument for not signing. Isn't it better to >>> just discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and >>> determine on that basis whether it is necessary, helpful or >>> terrible to subscribe to them? >>> >>> Best, >>> Chinmayi >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> > wrote: >>> >>> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>> >>>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online >>>> Coalition , a >>>> group of governments committed to advance Internet >>>> freedom, it would send a positive message to the >>>> international community. Countries that join the >>>> coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle >>>> that all people enjoy the same human rights online as >>>> they do offline. From Latin America, only Costa Rica >>>> and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other >>>> hand, other countries that are not members of the >>>> coalition, such as Russia, China and India, have taken >>>> steps in the wrong direction. For example, in the past, >>>> they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General >>>> assembly, which would have put in risk Internet >>>> governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online >>>> Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the >>>> opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some >>>> distance from its partners in groups such as the BRIC >>>> (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, >>>> Brazil and South Africa). >>>> >>> >>> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the >>> perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United >>> States is also a member of the Freedom Online >>> Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked >>> a full point lower than India in the Freedom House >>> survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has >>> suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is >>> quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take >>> in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet >>> governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *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: From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Oct 18 09:31:26 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:31:26 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Blogpost: The Open (Internet) Society and Its Enemies: Can Multistakeholderism Survive "Information Dominance"? In-Reply-To: <002f01cecc00$50c83f10$f258bd30$@gmail.com> References: <002f01cecc00$50c83f10$f258bd30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 14:48 18/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Language: en-us > >Since I will only be able to participate in a few sessions of BB because of >other commitments I've done up a blogpost with some of my thoughts/concerns > >http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e >nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/ >http://tinyurl.com/ke9ulqc I am glad the we eventually talk about the real field rather than legal dreams. I felt alone at being the only one at counterwar! MSism is to polycracy what voting is to democracy. Information dominance is a polycratic phenomenon comparable to democractic lobbying. I suppose the world can roughly handle it as such a dominance is an unreachable and technically falsifiable objective (you lose a lot of credibility and therefore influence on your allies if you are shown wrong on one point, i.e. that your dominance is uncertain). What is more worrying at this layer ignorance, corruption and astroturfing on your own side. Please also note that information dominance is by brute force on data. Intellition, i.e. intelligent dot connecting between information (soft force on connected data) is far more worrying. It may build intellectually algorithmed "unrreals". This would then become kafkaesque: the data could then become the structural support of checked consistant "truth" of errors and misjudgments. This is what one may fear from "algorithmic govenances". One may prevent information dominance through security. One cannot prevent intellition dominance (you cannot block the thinking of someone or/and impeach him from being intelligent). Therefore, you can only oppose external intellition dominance by disinformation jamming, architectural precaution and proportional deterrance. jfc From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 11:18:40 2013 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 20:48:40 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: <526132DA.2050803@itforchange.net> References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> <52602829.9020902@itforchange.net> <526132DA.2050803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 18 October 2013 08:45 AM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > > However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement mechanism >> is also of no use, because India would not submit to it.... Well, isnt that >> a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take towards future of global governance >> of the Internet. What other option there is to try to get such a >> enforcement mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to it? > > > This would have been better done if you had avoided interpreting what I > am saying, and just quoted me as is your usual custom. > > > Chinmayi, relax, and just argue your positions without getting personal! > I thought I was doing exactly that. Apologies if you saw it as getting personal. > > I believe what I said was: "Although I do like your vision of CIRP as > something that enables individual citizens, our country's history with > institutions like the International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional > Protocol I does not really offer much hope that India will ever submit > itself to a system in which it is accountable to individuals in an > international human rights forum." > > > There isnt any big interpretative jump from saying that one doesnt see > much hope in a proposed institutional mechanism, for the specific purpose > in hand, to be taken to suggest that one doesnt see any use in pursing that > particular proposal. But if instead you still find such a proposal useful, > just say it. > It is a jump to say that if one sees a particular flaw with a solution, one is unwilling to discuss it. Anyway, i think i am bowing out of this thread. Apologies to all our reluctant spectators. Hope to meet you all soon. Best, Chinmayi > > parminder > > > > I don't think that it was fatalistic or a refusal to discuss this > further. It is an effort to contribute to the discussion - I think that > models which rest completely on unrealistic assumptions about what > governments will do (note that this does not mean that we need to assume > the opposite) only mean that the models will fail. So discussions of > international digital rights fora cannot completely ignore the way in which > the US and India see their sovereignty in other international human > rights fora. Having acknowledged this, I am very happy to engage further, > and look for ways in which governments can be incentivised to consent to > some accountability, whether through general human rights institutions or > specialised digital rights institutions. > > > As far as CIRP is concerned, if we both agree that it was not a digital > rights enforcement mechanism proposal, I think it is fair for me to say > that it would not have created immediate accountability of states to > individuals. Whether it would have inevitably resulted in the creation of a digital > rights enforcement mechanism is a much longer conversation, that we can > save for Bali. > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:40 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as >> offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when states >> commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the best track >> record when it comes to making itself accountable before international >> human rights institutions for its domestic policies (neither incidentally >> has t >> >> >> Chinmayi, >> >> A digital rights court or some other rights enforcement mechanism is >> completely at another level than having an anchor agency in the UN system >> which can take up IG related issues, which alone CIRP was really supposed >> to be. In any case, to set up such a digital rights enforcement mechanism >> will need some kind of a prior international agreement that, in the first >> place, needs an IG related anchor space in the UN system . .... So, even if >> you want a digital rights enforcement mechanism - which as you rightly >> observe, I too have sought - then a CIRP kind of body can only enable it... >> It doesnt go against such a mechanise. If you want such enforcement >> mechanism in addition to a CIRP like space, then you put that demand as a >> CIRP plus one..... which is entirely fine with me. >> >> However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement mechanism >> is also of no use, because India would not submit to it.... Well, isnt that >> a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take towards future of global governance >> of the Internet. What other option there is to try to get such a >> enforcement mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to it? Other >> than perhaps to accept US as the global policemen, a role which it often >> arrogates to itself, wherever possible. There must be some direction that >> is the right one for us to go towards, however difficult the path may be. >> >> >> he US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are >> being built in India and that there has been quite a lot of resistance to >> government transparency when it comes to blocking or interception >> >> >> Yes, it has to resisted and fought in every way possible. An >> international regime - starting from a soft one towards increasingly harder >> ones - as we progress civilisationally - can only help that. On the other >> hand, I cant see how such a regime can hurt. >> >> >> (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as >> justification for domestic policy). >> >> >> I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But people can >> say whatever they want, and we cant stop it. >> >> >> parminder >> >> I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as President >> Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states to be >> accountable to individuals. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to >> surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a surveillance >> order if you never find out about it. >> >> >> >> >> Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables >> individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the >> International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not >> really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a system in >> which it is accountable to individuals in an international human rights >> forum. >> >> See you at the IGF :) >> Chinmayi >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >>> >>> We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the >>>> Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a >>>> full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >>>> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA >>>> revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take >>>> in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by >>>> the FOC states. >>> >>> >>> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not >>> really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These >>> Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of >>> telecommunications”) in the end. >>> >>> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN >>> oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that her concern >>> seems to be that there should be some accountability with respect to human >>> rights, I sympathise. The Indian government seems to be in >>> I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite correctly that while everybody >>> else was being told off for human rights violations, the countries telling >>> them off were also committing huge violations. While I certainly do not >>> subscribe to the idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow >>> justify another's (I still would not support the resolution that India >>> presented to the UN last year), >>> >>> >>> Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human rights >>> violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference between US >>> violating rights of people in a situation where it admits of no avenues of >>> recourse, even at a theoretical -political level, and when such things >>> happen within a political system which has its dynamics that can be engaged >>> to avoid or reduce such violation. CIRP like global governance proposals >>> are about having a global political regime within which then efforts can be >>> made to fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political >>> system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights violation >>> against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative different kind, >>> from the very important issue of domestic surveillances that we all >>> struggle against. >>> >>> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing as >>> the best model. >>> >>> >>> Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what >>> 'should be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a thing. >>> >>> Best , parminder >>> >>> >>> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely in >>> terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the ITRs debates >>> - that many were stepping away from the actual text and merely pointing out >>> who was signing as an argument for not signing. Isn't it better to just >>> discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and determine on that >>> basis whether it is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? >>> >>> Best, >>> Chinmayi >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>> >>>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition, >>>> a group of governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send >>>> a positive message to the international community. Countries that join the >>>> coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people >>>> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin America, >>>> only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other hand, >>>> other countries that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia, >>>> China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in >>>> the past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly, >>>> which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the >>>> Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the >>>> opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from its >>>> partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and >>>> IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >>>> >>>> >>>> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of >>>> India. We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the >>>> Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a >>>> full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >>>> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA >>>> revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take >>>> in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by >>>> the FOC states. Hmm. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *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: From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 18 15:22:25 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 03:22:25 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <000d01cecbeb$0a247e80$1e6d7b80$@gmail.com> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> <20131017091705.2f291cac@swan.bollow.ch> <0C925836-6954-4A57-B292-6B46D9180B13@acm.org> <000d01cecbeb$0a247e80$1e6d7b80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7C29C9CC-8FF1-4132-BF51-D96AA3FDEBB5@acm.org> On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:14, michael gurstein wrote: > I've been following these and associated discussions for some time now and > this is the first time that I've ever seen the association that you are > making below, Avri, between MSism and Participatory Democracy in fact when > the subject has been discussed at all, my sense was that most MS advocates > treated democracy in whatever manifestation with some contempt. To me, such a discussion is an example of a category mistake - comparing a part to the whole. Representative Democracy, aka Indirect democracy, is just one form of democracy; though I do admit that these days when there is so little representative democracy in this world that is easy to forget - as citizens continue to strive everywhere to get at least that much from their ruling regimes. At the other end of the scale in Direct Democracy, something that has long been considered an impossible goal in large scale movements - though something I think becomes possible as an universal, open& free, secure and private Internet is achieved - but this a ways away yet. Participatory democracy, in my opinion, falls somewhere in the middle and includes elements of both of the other forms of democracy. Ever since I got involved in Internet governance activities, before I know the term Internet governance, I have viewed participatory democracy as the evolving form we were engaged in. There is no contempt for democracy. For my part, however, there is a belief that it does not go far enough in representing me as a citizen, a netizen, an advocate, a technical person, etc. It does not go far enough in representing the aspects of my being beyond those of a body living in a constrained geographical space. Another problem many of us with national representatives being in charge is that the bureaucrats that fill the spots in Internet governance, nice and dedicated though they may be, are a second derivative of indirect democracy, i.e. they are even more indirect. They are often life time agency workers whose accountability to the demos is tenuous at best - though their boss may indeed be appointed by the elected representatives. Those who represent nations in Internet governance are, at best, accountable their boss, who is hopefully accountable (think of Yes, Minister examples here) to someone who may be accountable to election. Another element is that the stakeholders, for want of a better term, are groups in their own right that should be democratic and accountable. Sometimes this may be done by representative democratic means, e.g. when the group is small enough or organized enough to scale elections. Sometimes it may be direct democracy, or at least partially so in being open and accessible to all. In most cases, a form of participatory democracy suited to the nature of the group will be the best option. In this view, the multistakeholder model has always been a way to develop participatory democracy or at least one form of participatory democracy. I don't say it works perfectly in terms of access, accountability and transparency but in many of the cases before us it works to a limit that needs to always be pushed forward. So it someone tells me that national bureaucrats, with an occasional High Level Summit, are good enough to make the ITU or something like it democratic, yes, I will think that inappropriate and may show some contempt for the argument. But if you tell me that some of the equal partners in multistakeholder Internet governance are representative democracies, whether that is on a national geographic scale or a more local or non geographic scale, I will think that is one of the appropriate ways for subsidiary democracy to work itself out. Now back to sleep so I am ready for tomorrow's meeting - been sleeping on and off since i arrived in Bali 12 hours ago. 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: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Fri Oct 18 16:17:39 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:17:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> This statement still concentrates on ICANN-like functions: DNS and IP address assignment, no matter the desire for a platform to discuss 'orphan issues". Those (ICANN like functions) are the life blood of this form of "Internet governance," but they're trivia to the users of the world, who want substantive rights that no non-governmental organization with headquarters in Los Angeles and two other places can provide or is this the usual problem of existing organizations taking themselves or their relevance seriously and not taking the people who make and use the Net---not the people who run the routers and those who like to believe they regulate those who run the routers---seriously at all? Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (whatever it is, as we are still discussing that) make rules that subject listeners to the rule of law at home, and prohibit the massive monitoring of other peoples' societies abroad? Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (organization/network) impose all ports, all services neutrality on network operators so corruptly in bed with governments around the world that no one knows how to tease out all the criminal connections? Question: Can this multi-stakeholder decide whether "sharing services" are allowed to use monitoring technology that makes supposedly private sharing the material for "customized advertising" and "personal endorsement"? Is fairness regulation in the economies of the world irrelevant to the future of the Net, or are "multi-stakeholder" organizations going to get more regulatory power than national governments are presently prepared to exercise on behalf of their citizens? Question: How are these multi-stakeholder organizations planning to deal with governments that refuse to accept their decisions? Is a future ICANN going to manufacture its own blue helmets, and send them into Saudi Arabia or China? Conclusion: Isn't this really a bunch of statements from increasingly threatened current structures designed to make users of the Net think that somebody is looking out for their fundamental rights and collective economic interests, when in fact the spying, data-mining and pillaging is going to go smoothly on precisely as usual? -- 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 From valeriab at apc.org Mon Oct 7 17:31:36 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:31:36 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session In-Reply-To: <524FFD5D.3040102@itforchange.net> References: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org> <8EA84850-3108-4E17-897E-1C402FF26763@uzh.ch> <8412B7D1-7595-484C-B27B-AD6F043C5004@apc.org> <524FFD5D.3040102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <67A796F5-EFEC-460D-8B2E-D5C9B529AEC1@apc.org> Hi Parminder, First, I would like to thank you for taking the time to go over our statement and sharing your thoughts on that. I would like to thank you in particular for noting the call out of Pakistan government's human rights performance. We have done that in the past and will continue raising those concerns. And we have also done it in relation to US violations of human rights: https://www.apc.org/en/news/us-based-surveillance-and-data-collection-new-un-r http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ In relation to Pakistan's statement (on behalf of a group of countries) it is important to note that we welcomed it, not denounce it. What we would have liked to see however, was more commitment from those governments - most of whom have long established histories of violating their citizens' privacy rights - to transparency and to changing their own practices. It felt as if they were simply using the opportunity of the US's poor behaviour to put their enhanced cooperation agenda on the table, rather than really engaging the human rights topic under discussion in a substantial way. An overview of our thinking in relation to enhanced cooperation, multistakeholder participation and internet governance is reflected in our submission to the CSTD WGEC: http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/response-apc-cstd-working-group-enhanced-cooperati We would appreciate your comments on our submission to the WGEC so we can discuss them further in Bali. Looking forward to discuss these topics in person, Valeria On 05/10/2013, at 6:51, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 October 2013 07:35 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> A brief response from Bytes for All, Pakistan and APC on the >> intervention by Pakistan at the HRC24. >> http://www.apc.org/en/node/18573 > > Hi Valeria > > You rightly observed in your earlier email that this is the first > time a set of countries have raised the NSA surveillance issue in > the HRC. (And APC has long advocated that HRC is the right place for > many if not most global IG issues.) In the circumstances, such a > harsh response to the concerned statement against NSA snooping is > quite surprising. > > Well, as an aside, one can be opportunistic on the occasion of such > pious statements to point towards the domestic HR record of the > complaining countries. Fair enough... (Although we fail to say such > things when US makes pious statement in favour of > multistakeholderism, transparency etc, not immediately pointing to > TPP, ACTA, and other venues of global IG in which US is such a key > player, and their entire lack of transparency or MSism. We should > just be consistent. At Baku, for instance, several civil society > actors sat on numerous panels where US mouthed things about MSism, > transparency etc, without murmuring a word about US' record in other > IG spaces, and at home. Why this partial treatment to the US?). > > What I find quite surprising is the concern expressed in the APC > statement against the call for "development of an international > mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS > Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward", when APC had joined > others to roundly applaud President of Brazil's recent UN statement > which inter alia calls for "establishment of a civilian multilateral > framework for the governance and use of the Internet". > > If there is any essential difference between the two calls, I missed > it, and am happy to be enlightened. > > The APC statement decries - "The imposition of a new global internet > policy framework determined and agreed by governments – and > therefore being a top down and central mechanism – contradicts the > bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of policy making, as well as > the end to end principles of internet architecture that are > essential to a free and open internet. " > > Well, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a framework > determined and agreed by governments.... Whereas, all proposals for > a new global IG framework do seem to come with much much more > participative avenues then were available when UDHR came about.... > > APC statement says " creating a new UN body to focus on internet > policy will not be sustainable, or effective. The internet touches > on so many issues that no single policy space could ever effectively > deal with them all." > > Wonder then what is the logic of creating a single policy- > participation space (which btw now wants to be much more than that) > for global IG in the form of IGF..... How is it that the logic that > works for creating an integral single Internet policy space like the > IGF fails for other levels of Internet policy making processes... I > could not understand this. Would like a clarification. Also, any > effort to develop a new Internet policy space is to look at issues > that do not have a home at present (clearly recognised in the Tunis > agenda and the recent BestBits statement on EC) and to coordinated > Internet-relevant work of other agencies. No one is proposing that > any issue that but touches the Internet (today, most issues do) > should be withdrawn from all relevant agencies and given to the > proposed new body. This is a complete mis- representation of any > such proposal from any developing country. > > And then, the recommendation is "Bytes for All, Pakistan and APC > believe that a distributed governance with concrete and effective > multi-stakeholder mechanisms of participation in decision making is > a way with great potential for strengthening an open and free > internet." > > This recommendation will be useful if we knew what exactly is the > referred distributed governance system. And before we get on to this > discussion can we please agree to discuss technical/ logical > governance issues (ICANN plus system) as different from larger > social, economic, political and cultural public policy issues, as > was agreed by the BestBits statement on Enhanced Cooperation to > which APC signed.... > > I really have nothing to say about the distributed systems of > technical governance - meaning ICANN plus system. Lets accept it as > it is. Lets talk about other global IG issues, the present HRC > statement also being in such a regard. > > My main question in that respect is; what does APC/ Bytes consider > as a distributed governance system in terms of these larger public > policy issues pertaining to the global governance of the Internet? > Is APC proposing a new system(s) of this kind - in which case we > will like to know what does it look like? > > Or is APC pointing to some existing systems? Is is about the OECD, > TPP, ACTA, Cyberspace conference series, etc, kind of global IG > systems that it calls as a distributed system? If not, which ones? > > If we knew more about the preferred model of distributed governance > of the Internet recommended by APC/Bytes, we will be able to discuss > it here. (But, no ICANN here please, we already agreed to agree on > that system, as it is, and for the tasks it accomplishes.) > > > Thanks. > > parminder > > >> >> Best, >> >> Valeria >> >> >> On 20/09/2013, at 14:07, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi Robert >>> >>> You didn't see the text circulated here the other day proposing an >>> intergovernmental declaration on harmony? >>> >>> Apparently it was quickly withdrawn (there may be an interesting >>> story here) and there will now be a meeting summary doc instead. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Robert Guerra >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Interesting Indonesia joined pack of like minded countries. Will >>>> be interesting if they try to advance a document or statement at >>>> the high level meeting in Bali. >>>> >>>> Robert >>>> -- >>>> R. Guerra >>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>> >>>> On 2013-09-20, at 11:39 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Sharing this information with you all. >>>>> >>>>> Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, >>>>> Uganda, Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and China, >>>>> highlighted at HRC24 the need to protect the right to privacy as >>>>> an essential element of free expression, citing the >>>>> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and >>>>> La Rue’s report. The statement explicitly criticized the role of >>>>> major international internet and telecommunication technology >>>>> companies in violating privacy. It also explicitly made the >>>>> links between the allegations of mass state surveillance and the >>>>> need for reforming global internet governance. To quote the >>>>> statement directly: >>>>> >>>>> "The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum >>>>> established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on >>>>> Information Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to deliver >>>>> the desired results. A strategic rethinking of the global >>>>> internet governance mechanism is inevitable. Further development >>>>> of an international mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced >>>>> cooperation’ within the WSIS Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way >>>>> forward. However we will need to be sincere in our efforts to >>>>> ensure a transparent, free, fair and respectful international >>>>> intergovernmental mechanism of internet governance and one that >>>>> also ensures the right to privacy." >>>>> >>>>> The full intervention by Pakistan is available at http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Valeria >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Fri Oct 18 17:27:32 2013 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 23:27:32 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] "Net Neutrality, DPI and telecoms" Message-ID: HELO, "Net Neutrality, DPI and telecoms" is a working name and space for an upcoming conference with the ambition to cover relevant ground and Greens/EFA constituencies concerns regarding the future of the internet. It's all yet tbc, but as of this Friday evening, quite likely to happen March or April next year (in Brussels of course). Here are the words currently defining that working space: /Net Neutrality used to be a technical property of the internet that provided for its exceptional growth and acceptance as a societal infrastructure open and free for all. In recent years it has become clear it needs to be defended also at a political level. New and powerful technologies like Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and omnipresent new and powerful internet providers are today in a position to define relations between people, prosperity in communities and participation in society. Should Net Neutrality be regulated? And if so how?/ If you feel inspired, want to talk, participate or contribute, please drop me a line! Best regards. //Erik -- Erik Josefsson Advisor on Internet Policies Greens/EFA Group GSM: *+32484082063* BXL: PHS 04C075 TEL: +3222832667 SBG: WIC M03005 TEL: +33388173776 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 897 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 18 18:15:05 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 06:15:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <985F4C9B-5F2C-4D97-8505-4A7D1CE25386@acm.org> Hi, In a sense, good questions that could be asked of any group whether it was intergovernmental, industry, civil society or multistakeholder. If you think a UN based group is going to don its blue helmets and go deal with these issues, just look at the threshold one needs to reach before the UN deal with situation were people who are being killed in the various genocidal Besides I do not think there are many here who want to go to war on this issues. In another sense, I think these question might better be cast as issues for work to be done: How can these multistakeholder organizations ... And then we can spend our time on figuring out how do it. I would contend that multistakeholder organizations bringing, as they might if they worked on these orphaned problems. all the capabilities of all stakeholders (including those IGOs) into play, have a better chance of finding peaceful solutions than the UN blue helmets. avri On 19 Oct 2013, at 04:17, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (whatever it is, as we are still discussing that) make rules that > subject listeners to the rule of law at home, and prohibit the massive > monitoring of other peoples' societies abroad? > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (organization/network) impose all ports, > all services neutrality on network operators so corruptly in bed with > governments around the world that no one knows how to tease out all > the criminal connections? > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder decide whether > "sharing services" are allowed to use monitoring technology that makes > supposedly private sharing the material for "customized advertising" > and "personal endorsement"? Is fairness regulation in the economies > of the world irrelevant to the future of the Net, or are > "multi-stakeholder" organizations going to get more regulatory power > than national governments are presently prepared to exercise on behalf > of their citizens? > > Question: How are these multi-stakeholder organizations planning to > deal with governments that refuse to accept their decisions? Is a > future ICANN going to manufacture its own blue helmets, and send them > into Saudi Arabia or China? > > Conclusion: Isn't this really a bunch of statements from increasingly threatened current structures designed to make > users of the Net think that somebody is looking out for their > fundamental rights and collective economic interests, when in fact the > spying, data-mining and pillaging is going to go smoothly on precisely > as usual? > > - -------------- 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: From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Oct 18 19:00:57 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 01:00:57 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Cheha, etc. In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 19:09 18/10/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Yes, Carlos, but....if the community cannot come together on agreed >mechanisms and institutions for global governance of the so-called >"phone list" (really bad metaphor, by the way) how is it able to >take on larger problems? >In other words, if we can't do ICANN right, why should anyone think >we can do anything else? >I have always viewed ICANN as a test case of our capabilities for >global governance, not as intrinsically interesting in itself. Milton, I see and agree with your point. This is precisely why the statUS-quo is much needed: it represents an "afforable" and organized emergence of the cyberspace intricacy for all. However, an emergence is a dynamic form of ballance and there are two big architectonic forces that oppose it: 1. when we designed it, the root was not to be managed that way. When Postel and Mokapetris used it to specify and design the DNS they known that its was an heterarchy inherited from the real world (the then existing data neworks and monopolies) and not a hierarchy as was their local initial NIC. This why they designed the DNS to support 35,635 roots. 2. the convenient stability provided by the status-quo was only initially convenient. Further on it was constrain by the US coordination. This helped the US industry but flavored it as resulting from US influence, imposing an US vision of the network, subject to US laws. This necessarily indusced centripetal forces. >Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, >the more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are >able to develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate >and simpler problem (ICANN). We all know there are alternative technically workable solutions, but nobody knows where their work would politically lead us. As I said a legal, political, economical, military status-quo could satisfy everyone, but (1) it being US coordinated is an increasing problem (2) we do not know how long the US centralizing umbrella is going to protect us from the Internet intrinsicaly distributed architecture and (3) if the USG reduces its centralization constraints we have no experience of the consquences and of the alternative centralization forces (copyrights, Google, regional interests). This means two main questions: - how long do we have to prepare a transition? - a transition to what? What I presently observe is that is precisely the time when IAB removed itself from the responsibility of an architectural guidance toward a better internet. As an alternative the OpenUse Montevidean alliance (ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IAB, W3C, RIRs) adheres to a market driven innovation (RFC 6852) without obsoleting RFC 3869 and 3935. This can only mean one thing: an USCF leadership (or who ever manages the US Cyber Command budget). This resumes the initial ARPA sponsorship. Things are more complex than in 1972 or 1983, howver the Snowden clarification show came just in time to lift some inhibitions, confirm the dual R&D with Google and unit the OECD Now, time has come, I think, to completely reread the Internet RFCs from a different and more mature architectonical point of view. The coming months are interesting as it seems that this reread will be military based, with a focus on the security of the cyber operations theater. This is why I would be interested in having an-online full copy of the NATO's Tallin manual. jfc From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 18 13:09:48 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:09:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca>,<526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> On Thursday 17 October 2013 05:49 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will > probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the > Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the > Internet". > > The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this > huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for > a surprise very soon. :) Yes, Carlos, but....if the community cannot come together on agreed mechanisms and institutions for global governance of the so-called "phone list" (really bad metaphor, by the way) how is it able to take on larger problems? In other words, if we can't do ICANN right, why should anyone think we can do anything else? I have always viewed ICANN as a test case of our capabilities for global governance, not as intrinsically interesting in itself. Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler problem (ICANN). From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 18 13:16:40 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:16:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org>,<52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________________ > I agree with John's assessment that Montevideo statement may indeed be > aiming at a larger IG ecology than just concerns ICANN plus' remit. Not really. True, it criticizes impact of surveillance on trust, but its only specific calls for reform pertain to names and numbers governance. > Also of interest is Andrew's observations from the Delhi meeting, where > there was this talk of getting orphan IG issues - which could be like > net neutrality, intellectual property on internet etc - under a > multistakeholder kind of arrangement - ICANN based, or otherwise. Oh sure, throw in "little" issues like IPR and net neutrality and you're sure to paralyze the summit and make sure it doesn't accomplish anything. > And this way, what to my perhaps very opinionated self appears to be, a > corporate dominated governance model is taking over tradtional > democratic system of public policy making. Others may have different > views though. > > But the good thing is, now that we are clearly faced with the > proposition - we all can/ should now clearly express our views if we > would like all kinds of substantive public policy issues to be decided > by multistakeholder bodies a la ICANN etc, or we are better off with > democracy as we know it..... democracy as we know it doesn't scale. or perhaps we can test this proposition by having a vote-off on whether China's government should take over India. who do you think would get the largest number of votes? ;-) From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Oct 18 21:45:08 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 09:45:08 +0800 Subject: Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 References: Message-ID: <1877ED71-E4B4-46FA-A920-5C849177F7FB@uzh.ch> Perhaps of interest Begin forwarded message: > From: William Drake > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > Date: October 19, 2013 9:36:14 AM GMT+08:00 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Hi Milton > > On Oct 19, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler problem (ICANN) > > There's two problems with this. First, Dilma wants to talk about a broader agenda, and many other governments have said the same for years in different ways. Second, Fadi and the coalition he's coordinating with wants to talk about a broader agenda. Both sides have made that clear recently, and are unlikely to be persuaded to the contrary ex ante by blogs etc. Maybe if efforts to discuss the broader issues——the holes in the gov architecture that CS has been noting since 2003—hit a road block they'll collapse back to something narrowly focused on ICANN, but I wouldn't presume it a this point. > > We're all in blue skies guessing land as to where this will go, and absent clear info a number of folks have been projecting their preferred narratives onto the space. So I will too. I start from the assumption we should listen to what the powers that be have been saying for quite some time. And what I've heard for quite some time now, is > > 1. A change in the AoC that removes or alters the USG roles to be at best a 'first among equals' in some sense, with greater encouragement to the GAC to step up. This has been US policy, so its adoption is not quite "the world turns its back on USG" and so. Question of timing and dynamics—Snowden revelations obviously accelerated things in a wild card way that was not envisioned or desired. > > 2. A parallel change to the USG role in the IANA contract cutting ICANN looser and spinning toward GAC oversight. > > 3. Consideration of some sort of new multistakeholder process for orphaned issues etc. This could prove the hardest, as one assumes G77 and China will still want a UN basis, which wouldn't be congenial to I-orgs et al. > > The first two pieces are easy enough to imagine, although they will be difficult for the USG to sell domestically. Obama hardly needs the Tea Party and libertarian/conservative think tanks running around hyperventilating about him being the "man who gave away the Internet" at this moment, especially before the mid-term elections. And there'd have to be a lot of hand holding viz. Versign and other contracted parties, major corporate users, US agencies, and nervous allies, to assure them nothing's seriously changed re: stability and security. > > The third one's anyone's guess. No new IGOs has been the mantra. CSTD is obviously too feeble to be of any use. So something else that can pass muster with governments—? And obviously, there can't be ICANN mission creep here, although there will probably be Fadi creep…ICANN will have to be a supportive partner in some manner. I'd have preferred appending a working group mechanism to the IGF to strengthen its' role, but a lot of people remain fixed on preserving its pristine status as a dialogue space full stop given the no-membership problem etc. > > There's also talk, e.g. Dilma, about some new multilateral overlay on certain issues. That too would run into standard UN divisions unless it's a pretty generic statement of principles. This could make Wolfgang's Focus Session on Principles, as well as the first FC led by Brazil, particularly interesting. > > Cheers > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 21:49:09 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 21:49:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <1877ED71-E4B4-46FA-A920-5C849177F7FB@uzh.ch> References: <1877ED71-E4B4-46FA-A920-5C849177F7FB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: I just want to take the opportunity share with you http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/internet_and_statecraft_brazil_and_the_future_of_internet_governance-93553 And let you know that Everton Lucero ( http://www.linkedin.com/pub/everton-lucero/0/448/920) will be here representing Brazil at IGF and (Brazilians hope) moving forward :-) C On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM, William Drake wrote: > Perhaps of interest > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *William Drake > *Subject: **Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & > Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014* > *Date: *October 19, 2013 9:36:14 AM GMT+08:00 > *To: *Milton L Mueller > *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Hi Milton > > On Oct 19, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the > more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to > develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler > problem (ICANN) > > > There's two problems with this. First, Dilma wants to talk about a > broader agenda, and many other governments have said the same for years in > different ways. Second, Fadi and the coalition he's coordinating with > wants to talk about a broader agenda. Both sides have made that clear > recently, and are unlikely to be persuaded to the contrary ex ante by blogs > etc. Maybe if efforts to discuss the broader issues——the holes in the gov > architecture that CS has been noting since 2003—hit a road block they'll > collapse back to something narrowly focused on ICANN, but I wouldn't > presume it a this point. > > We're all in blue skies guessing land as to where this will go, and absent > clear info a number of folks have been projecting their preferred > narratives onto the space. So I will too. I start from the assumption we > should listen to what the powers that be have been saying for quite some > time. And what I've heard for quite some time now, is > > 1. A change in the AoC that removes or alters the USG roles to be at best > a 'first among equals' in some sense, with greater encouragement to the GAC > to step up. This has been US policy, so its adoption is not quite "the > world turns its back on USG" and so. Question of timing and > dynamics—Snowden revelations obviously accelerated things in a wild card > way that was not envisioned or desired. > > 2. A parallel change to the USG role in the IANA contract cutting ICANN > looser and spinning toward GAC oversight. > > 3. Consideration of some sort of new multistakeholder process for > orphaned issues etc. This could prove the hardest, as one assumes G77 and > China will still want a UN basis, which wouldn't be congenial to I-orgs et > al. > > The first two pieces are easy enough to imagine, although they will be > difficult for the USG to sell domestically. Obama hardly needs the Tea > Party and libertarian/conservative think tanks running around > hyperventilating about him being the "man who gave away the Internet" at > this moment, especially before the mid-term elections. And there'd have to > be a lot of hand holding viz. Versign and other contracted parties, major > corporate users, US agencies, and nervous allies, to assure them nothing's > seriously changed re: stability and security. > > The third one's anyone's guess. No new IGOs has been the mantra. CSTD is > obviously too feeble to be of any use. So something else that can pass > muster with governments—? And obviously, there can't be ICANN mission > creep here, although there will probably be Fadi creep…ICANN will have to > be a supportive partner in some manner. I'd have preferred appending a > working group mechanism to the IGF to strengthen its' role, but a lot of > people remain fixed on preserving its pristine status as a dialogue space > full stop given the no-membership problem etc. > > There's also talk, e.g. Dilma, about some new multilateral overlay on > certain issues. That too would run into standard UN divisions unless it's > a pretty generic statement of principles. This could make Wolfgang's Focus > Session on Principles, as well as the first FC led by Brazil, particularly > interesting. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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: From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu Fri Oct 18 21:53:49 2013 From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 12:53:49 +1100 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1877ED71-E4B4-46FA-A920-5C849177F7FB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Thanks Caro for the info. Query: Is Everton the higher rank governmental official attending on behalf of Brazil, or Brazil is planning to send a bigger delegation? Thanks Eduardo On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > I just want to take the opportunity share with you > > http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/internet_and_statecraft_brazil_and_the_future_of_internet_governance-93553 > > And let you know that Everton Lucero ( > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/everton-lucero/0/448/920) will be here > representing Brazil at IGF and (Brazilians hope) moving forward :-) > > C > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Perhaps of interest >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *William Drake >> *Subject: **Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >> Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014* >> *Date: *October 19, 2013 9:36:14 AM GMT+08:00 >> *To: *Milton L Mueller >> *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> Hi Milton >> >> On Oct 19, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the >> more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to >> develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler >> problem (ICANN) >> >> >> There's two problems with this. First, Dilma wants to talk about a >> broader agenda, and many other governments have said the same for years in >> different ways. Second, Fadi and the coalition he's coordinating with >> wants to talk about a broader agenda. Both sides have made that clear >> recently, and are unlikely to be persuaded to the contrary ex ante by blogs >> etc. Maybe if efforts to discuss the broader issues——the holes in the gov >> architecture that CS has been noting since 2003—hit a road block they'll >> collapse back to something narrowly focused on ICANN, but I wouldn't >> presume it a this point. >> >> We're all in blue skies guessing land as to where this will go, and >> absent clear info a number of folks have been projecting their preferred >> narratives onto the space. So I will too. I start from the assumption we >> should listen to what the powers that be have been saying for quite some >> time. And what I've heard for quite some time now, is >> >> 1. A change in the AoC that removes or alters the USG roles to be at best >> a 'first among equals' in some sense, with greater encouragement to the GAC >> to step up. This has been US policy, so its adoption is not quite "the >> world turns its back on USG" and so. Question of timing and >> dynamics—Snowden revelations obviously accelerated things in a wild card >> way that was not envisioned or desired. >> >> 2. A parallel change to the USG role in the IANA contract cutting ICANN >> looser and spinning toward GAC oversight. >> >> 3. Consideration of some sort of new multistakeholder process for >> orphaned issues etc. This could prove the hardest, as one assumes G77 and >> China will still want a UN basis, which wouldn't be congenial to I-orgs et >> al. >> >> The first two pieces are easy enough to imagine, although they will be >> difficult for the USG to sell domestically. Obama hardly needs the Tea >> Party and libertarian/conservative think tanks running around >> hyperventilating about him being the "man who gave away the Internet" at >> this moment, especially before the mid-term elections. And there'd have to >> be a lot of hand holding viz. Versign and other contracted parties, major >> corporate users, US agencies, and nervous allies, to assure them nothing's >> seriously changed re: stability and security. >> >> The third one's anyone's guess. No new IGOs has been the mantra. CSTD >> is obviously too feeble to be of any use. So something else that can pass >> muster with governments—? And obviously, there can't be ICANN mission >> creep here, although there will probably be Fadi creep…ICANN will have to >> be a supportive partner in some manner. I'd have preferred appending a >> working group mechanism to the IGF to strengthen its' role, but a lot of >> people remain fixed on preserving its pristine status as a dialogue space >> full stop given the no-membership problem etc. >> >> There's also talk, e.g. Dilma, about some new multilateral overlay on >> certain issues. That too would run into standard UN divisions unless it's >> a pretty generic statement of principles. This could make Wolfgang's Focus >> Session on Principles, as well as the first FC led by Brazil, particularly >> interesting. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 22:06:24 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:06:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1877ED71-E4B4-46FA-A920-5C849177F7FB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Brazil does have a big delegation this year. Many from CGI.Br are coming. Also MC&T (which we all have to worry about...) We will have: our ambassador Benedicto Fonseca and Everton Paulo Bernardo (Ministry of Communications) Virgilio Almeida (Secretary for ICTs, Ministry of Communication) a representative from ANATEL a representative from our Ministry of Defense (!) A big group of counselors from CGI.Br, thankfully, including CA, Percival Henriques, Demi and others and civil society: Joana - CTS/FGV Joao Caribe Jorge Machado - GPOPAI/USP and OKF-Br Carol (me) - New America and board of OKF-Br etc Carol On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > Thanks Caro for the info. > > Query: Is Everton the higher rank governmental official attending on > behalf of Brazil, or Brazil is planning to send a bigger delegation? > > Thanks > > Eduardo > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I just want to take the opportunity share with you >> >> http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/internet_and_statecraft_brazil_and_the_future_of_internet_governance-93553 >> >> And let you know that Everton Lucero ( >> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/everton-lucero/0/448/920) will be here >> representing Brazil at IGF and (Brazilians hope) moving forward :-) >> >> C >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Perhaps of interest >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From: *William Drake >>> *Subject: **Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >>> Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014* >>> *Date: *October 19, 2013 9:36:14 AM GMT+08:00 >>> *To: *Milton L Mueller >>> *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>> >>> Hi Milton >>> >>> On Oct 19, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the >>> more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to >>> develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler >>> problem (ICANN) >>> >>> >>> There's two problems with this. First, Dilma wants to talk about a >>> broader agenda, and many other governments have said the same for years in >>> different ways. Second, Fadi and the coalition he's coordinating with >>> wants to talk about a broader agenda. Both sides have made that clear >>> recently, and are unlikely to be persuaded to the contrary ex ante by blogs >>> etc. Maybe if efforts to discuss the broader issues——the holes in the gov >>> architecture that CS has been noting since 2003—hit a road block they'll >>> collapse back to something narrowly focused on ICANN, but I wouldn't >>> presume it a this point. >>> >>> We're all in blue skies guessing land as to where this will go, and >>> absent clear info a number of folks have been projecting their preferred >>> narratives onto the space. So I will too. I start from the assumption we >>> should listen to what the powers that be have been saying for quite some >>> time. And what I've heard for quite some time now, is >>> >>> 1. A change in the AoC that removes or alters the USG roles to be at >>> best a 'first among equals' in some sense, with greater encouragement to >>> the GAC to step up. This has been US policy, so its adoption is not quite >>> "the world turns its back on USG" and so. Question of timing and >>> dynamics—Snowden revelations obviously accelerated things in a wild card >>> way that was not envisioned or desired. >>> >>> 2. A parallel change to the USG role in the IANA contract cutting ICANN >>> looser and spinning toward GAC oversight. >>> >>> 3. Consideration of some sort of new multistakeholder process for >>> orphaned issues etc. This could prove the hardest, as one assumes G77 and >>> China will still want a UN basis, which wouldn't be congenial to I-orgs et >>> al. >>> >>> The first two pieces are easy enough to imagine, although they will be >>> difficult for the USG to sell domestically. Obama hardly needs the Tea >>> Party and libertarian/conservative think tanks running around >>> hyperventilating about him being the "man who gave away the Internet" at >>> this moment, especially before the mid-term elections. And there'd have to >>> be a lot of hand holding viz. Versign and other contracted parties, major >>> corporate users, US agencies, and nervous allies, to assure them nothing's >>> seriously changed re: stability and security. >>> >>> The third one's anyone's guess. No new IGOs has been the mantra. CSTD >>> is obviously too feeble to be of any use. So something else that can pass >>> muster with governments—? And obviously, there can't be ICANN mission >>> creep here, although there will probably be Fadi creep…ICANN will have to >>> be a supportive partner in some manner. I'd have preferred appending a >>> working group mechanism to the IGF to strengthen its' role, but a lot of >>> people remain fixed on preserving its pristine status as a dialogue space >>> full stop given the no-membership problem etc. >>> >>> There's also talk, e.g. Dilma, about some new multilateral overlay on >>> certain issues. That too would run into standard UN divisions unless it's >>> a pretty generic statement of principles. This could make Wolfgang's Focus >>> Session on Principles, as well as the first FC led by Brazil, particularly >>> interesting. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 22:18:01 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:18:01 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] here it is - Brazilian delegation Message-ID: BRAZILMs.NararéBretasBRAZILMr.ValdirMoysés SimãoBRAZILMr.RaphaelMandarino Jr BRAZILMr.JefersonNacifBRAZILMr.Marcelo becharade Souza HobaikaBRAZILMr. FlavioLenz CesarBRAZILMr.Paulo BernardoSilvaBRAZILMr.EvertonLuceroBRAZILMr. BENEDICTOFONSECABRAZILMr.AlexandreFontenelle http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list there it is - in addition to the names I have sent 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: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Oct 7 21:21:57 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 21:21:57 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> Jeremy Malcolm [2013-10-04 10:50]: > On 04/10/2013, at 5:44 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >> Both the substance of these principles and the process around drafting them is something civil society should have a stance on. If the BB group could draft a joint statement to address civil society concerns around this document, a few of us who managed to get accredited (I am aware of four other CS people who are going) could aim to submit it to the governments while in Seoul. >> I think Parminder is right – we should pay closer attention to this and related processes. These UN/OECD source documents have not just appeared out of the blue – they have been drafted across many months by governments sitting in these forums, while going almost unnoticed in our circles. Seeing as internet governance is increasingly entering the field of high politics at the UNGA, and how the issue area is becoming an MFA agenda item (rather than just a telecom ministries’ issue), we could do worse than to start working of a strategy to engage in these forums and not just the ITU and WSIS+10-related events. Perhaps something to address at the BB session in Bali? > > Luckily we do have people who are involved in those other processes so they are not going completely unnoticed, but this is not the first time that the suggestion has come up that the OECD work could also be relevant to Best Bits. I would be happy to give a briefing on the OECD Internet Policy Principles in Bali if we have time. Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: apart from process related issues of lack of representation of developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a statement of principles that had developing world participation look different? Which of the following policymaking principles would not find place if the same exercise had been undertaken by a more globally representative grouping, and what policymaking principles would potentially have been added? 1. Promote and protect the global free flow of information; 2. Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet; 3. Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services; 4. Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; 5. Encourage multi-stakeholder co-operation in policy development processes; 6. Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; 7. Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process; 8. Ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability; 9. Strengthen consistency and effectiveness in privacy protection at a global level; 10. Maximise individual empowerment; 11. Promote creativity and innovation; 12. Limit Internet intermediary liability; 13. Encourage co-operation to promote Internet security; 14. Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------+ 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: From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 18 23:22:13 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:22:13 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <038e01cecc73$0ce4f540$26aedfc0$@gmail.com> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> <20131017091705.2f291cac@swan.bollow.ch> <0C925836-6954-4A57-B292-6B46D9180B13@acm.org> <000d01cecbeb$0a247e80$1e6d7b80$@gmail.com> <7C29C9CC-8FF1-4132-BF51-D96AA3FDEBB5@acm.org> <038e01cecc73$0ce4f540$26aedfc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, The term exists and is being widely used. I think we need to take control, to the extent possible, of the definition and direction of the effort. We need to do what we can to stop the term from being abused and applied to things that are counter to the participatory decision goal we are trying to achieve. I argue we should do that as opposed to running away when we see the term abused and co-opted. Creating a new term or way of speaking is always satisfying, i love neologizing, but it takes the discussion back to a starting point and any little bit that has been gained is risked. avri On 19 Oct 2013, at 10:29, michael gurstein wrote: > Given what you say below Avri, which I agree with for the most part... I'm > wondering what is added to the desireable and necessary discussion of > democratic governance of and in the Internet by the introduction and use of > the terminology of "Multistakeholderism" at all? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 3:22 AM > To: bestbits List > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants > > > On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:14, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I've been following these and associated discussions for some time now >> and this is the first time that I've ever seen the association that >> you are making below, Avri, between MSism and Participatory Democracy >> in fact when the subject has been discussed at all, my sense was that >> most MS advocates treated democracy in whatever manifestation with some > contempt. > > > To me, such a discussion is an example of a category mistake - comparing a > part to the whole. > > Representative Democracy, aka Indirect democracy, is just one form of > democracy; though I do admit that these days when there is so little > representative democracy in this world that is easy to forget - as citizens > continue to strive everywhere to get at least that much from their ruling > regimes. At the other end of the scale in Direct Democracy, something that > has long been considered an impossible goal in large scale movements - > though something I think becomes possible as an universal, open& free, > secure and private Internet is achieved - but this a ways away yet. > > Participatory democracy, in my opinion, falls somewhere in the middle and > includes elements of both of the other forms of democracy. Ever since I got > involved in Internet governance activities, before I know the term Internet > governance, I have viewed participatory democracy as the evolving form we > were engaged in. > > There is no contempt for democracy. For my part, however, there is a belief > that it does not go far enough in representing me as a citizen, a netizen, > an advocate, a technical person, etc. It does not go far enough in > representing the aspects of my being beyond those of a body living in a > constrained geographical space. Another problem many of us with national > representatives being in charge is that the bureaucrats that fill the spots > in Internet governance, nice and dedicated though they may be, are a second > derivative of indirect democracy, i.e. they are even more indirect. They > are often life time agency workers whose accountability to the demos is > tenuous at best - though their boss may indeed be appointed by the elected > representatives. Those who represent nations in Internet governance are, at > best, accountable their boss, who is hopefully accountable (think of Yes, > Minister examples here) to someone who may be accountable to election. > > Another element is that the stakeholders, for want of a better term, are > groups in their own right that should be democratic and accountable. > Sometimes this may be done by representative democratic means, e.g. when the > group is small enough or organized enough to scale elections. Sometimes it > may be direct democracy, or at least partially so in being open and > accessible to all. In most cases, a form of participatory democracy suited > to the nature of the group will be the best option. > > In this view, the multistakeholder model has always been a way to develop > participatory democracy or at least one form of participatory democracy. I > don't say it works perfectly in terms of access, accountability and > transparency but in many of the cases before us it works to a limit that > needs to always be pushed forward. > > So it someone tells me that national bureaucrats, with an occasional High > Level Summit, are good enough to make the ITU or something like it > democratic, yes, I will think that inappropriate and may show some contempt > for the argument. But if you tell me that some of the equal partners in > multistakeholder Internet governance are representative democracies, whether > that is on a national geographic scale or a more local or non geographic > scale, I will think that is one of the appropriate ways for subsidiary > democracy to work itself out. > > Now back to sleep so I am ready for tomorrow's meeting - been sleeping on > and off since i arrived in Bali 12 hours ago. > > 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: From joao.caribe at me.com Fri Oct 18 23:24:24 2013 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:24:24 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] here it is - Brazilian delegation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49E67741-3368-4AA1-B6C8-49C79D9B9A7E@me.com> Jesus! The Internet number one enemy Paulo Bernado, the Minister are coming? It's not good... _ João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 19/10/2013, às 10:18, Carolina Rossini escreveu: > > > > BRAZIL Ms. Nararé Bretas > BRAZIL Mr. Valdir Moysés Simão > BRAZIL Mr. Raphael Mandarino Jr > BRAZIL Mr. Jeferson Nacif > BRAZIL Mr. Marcelo bechara de Souza Hobaika > BRAZIL Mr. Flavio Lenz Cesar > BRAZIL Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva > BRAZIL Mr. Everton Lucero > BRAZIL Mr. BENEDICTO FONSECA > BRAZIL Mr. Alexandre Fontenelle > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list there it is - in addition to the names I have sent > 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: From joao.caribe at me.com Fri Oct 18 23:37:41 2013 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:37:41 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] here it is - Brazilian delegation In-Reply-To: References: <49E67741-3368-4AA1-B6C8-49C79D9B9A7E@me.com> Message-ID: Oh Joana, hot debates could be run, and the Brazilian Government schizophrenia will show up. I never imagined that this IGF would be so fun with chit on fan ? _ João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 19/10/2013, às 11:30, Joana Varon escreveu: > > Though not in the list, Virgilio Almeida, from Ministry of Science and Tech is coming too.. which is good... he was in Seoul Cyberspace Conference and will be attending IGF on a last hour call from our President. > > Its actually very interesting, we have Ministry of Communications, Anatel, CGI.br, Ministry of Science and Technology and an Ambassador. I've never seen such a diverse and High Level Brazilian Delegation coming to the IGF. > > >> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: >> Jesus! >> >> The Internet number one enemy Paulo Bernado, the Minister are coming? It's not good... >> >> _ >> João Carlos Caribé >> (021) 8761 1967 >> (021) 4042 7727 >> Skype joaocaribe >> Enviado via iPad >> >>> Em 19/10/2013, às 10:18, Carolina Rossini escreveu: >>> >> >>> >>> BRAZIL Ms. Nararé Bretas >>> BRAZIL Mr. Valdir Moysés Simão >>> BRAZIL Mr. Raphael Mandarino Jr >>> BRAZIL Mr. Jeferson Nacif >>> BRAZIL Mr. Marcelo bechara de Souza Hobaika >>> BRAZIL Mr. Flavio Lenz Cesar >>> BRAZIL Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva >>> BRAZIL Mr. Everton Lucero >>> BRAZIL Mr. BENEDICTO FONSECA >>> BRAZIL Mr. Alexandre Fontenelle >>> >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list there it is - in addition to the names I have sent >>> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 22:29:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 10:29:08 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <7C29C9CC-8FF1-4132-BF51-D96AA3FDEBB5@acm.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> <20131017091705.2f291cac@swan.bollow.ch> <0C925836-6954-4A57-B292-6B46D9180B13@acm.org> <000d01cecbeb$0a247e80$1e6d7b80$@gmail.com> <7C29C9CC-8FF1-4132-BF51-D96AA3FDEBB5@acm.org> Message-ID: <038e01cecc73$0ce4f540$26aedfc0$@gmail.com> Given what you say below Avri, which I agree with for the most part... I'm wondering what is added to the desireable and necessary discussion of democratic governance of and in the Internet by the introduction and use of the terminology of "Multistakeholderism" at all? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 3:22 AM To: bestbits List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:14, michael gurstein wrote: > I've been following these and associated discussions for some time now > and this is the first time that I've ever seen the association that > you are making below, Avri, between MSism and Participatory Democracy > in fact when the subject has been discussed at all, my sense was that > most MS advocates treated democracy in whatever manifestation with some contempt. To me, such a discussion is an example of a category mistake - comparing a part to the whole. Representative Democracy, aka Indirect democracy, is just one form of democracy; though I do admit that these days when there is so little representative democracy in this world that is easy to forget - as citizens continue to strive everywhere to get at least that much from their ruling regimes. At the other end of the scale in Direct Democracy, something that has long been considered an impossible goal in large scale movements - though something I think becomes possible as an universal, open& free, secure and private Internet is achieved - but this a ways away yet. Participatory democracy, in my opinion, falls somewhere in the middle and includes elements of both of the other forms of democracy. Ever since I got involved in Internet governance activities, before I know the term Internet governance, I have viewed participatory democracy as the evolving form we were engaged in. There is no contempt for democracy. For my part, however, there is a belief that it does not go far enough in representing me as a citizen, a netizen, an advocate, a technical person, etc. It does not go far enough in representing the aspects of my being beyond those of a body living in a constrained geographical space. Another problem many of us with national representatives being in charge is that the bureaucrats that fill the spots in Internet governance, nice and dedicated though they may be, are a second derivative of indirect democracy, i.e. they are even more indirect. They are often life time agency workers whose accountability to the demos is tenuous at best - though their boss may indeed be appointed by the elected representatives. Those who represent nations in Internet governance are, at best, accountable their boss, who is hopefully accountable (think of Yes, Minister examples here) to someone who may be accountable to election. Another element is that the stakeholders, for want of a better term, are groups in their own right that should be democratic and accountable. Sometimes this may be done by representative democratic means, e.g. when the group is small enough or organized enough to scale elections. Sometimes it may be direct democracy, or at least partially so in being open and accessible to all. In most cases, a form of participatory democracy suited to the nature of the group will be the best option. In this view, the multistakeholder model has always been a way to develop participatory democracy or at least one form of participatory democracy. I don't say it works perfectly in terms of access, accountability and transparency but in many of the cases before us it works to a limit that needs to always be pushed forward. So it someone tells me that national bureaucrats, with an occasional High Level Summit, are good enough to make the ITU or something like it democratic, yes, I will think that inappropriate and may show some contempt for the argument. But if you tell me that some of the equal partners in multistakeholder Internet governance are representative democracies, whether that is on a national geographic scale or a more local or non geographic scale, I will think that is one of the appropriate ways for subsidiary democracy to work itself out. Now back to sleep so I am ready for tomorrow's meeting - been sleeping on and off since i arrived in Bali 12 hours ago. avri From joana at varonferraz.com Fri Oct 18 23:30:18 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 12:30:18 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] here it is - Brazilian delegation In-Reply-To: <49E67741-3368-4AA1-B6C8-49C79D9B9A7E@me.com> References: <49E67741-3368-4AA1-B6C8-49C79D9B9A7E@me.com> Message-ID: Though not in the list, Virgilio Almeida, from Ministry of Science and Tech is coming too.. which is good... he was in Seoul Cyberspace Conference and will be attending IGF on a last hour call from our President. Its actually very interesting, we have Ministry of Communications, Anatel, CGI.br, Ministry of Science and Technology and an Ambassador. I've never seen such a diverse and High Level Brazilian Delegation coming to the IGF. On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > Jesus! > > The Internet number one enemy Paulo Bernado, the Minister are coming? It's > not good... > > _ > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via iPad > > Em 19/10/2013, às 10:18, Carolina Rossini > escreveu: > > > BRAZIL Ms.NararéBretas BRAZILMr.ValdirMoysés Simão BRAZILMr.Raphael Mandarino > JrBRAZIL Mr. JefersonNacifBRAZIL Mr.Marcelo becharade Souza Hobaika BRAZIL > Mr.Flavio Lenz CesarBRAZILMr. Paulo BernardoSilva BRAZILMr.EvertonLucero > BRAZILMr.BENEDICTO FONSECABRAZILMr. AlexandreFontenelle > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list there it is - in > addition to the names I have sent > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 23:34:51 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 23:34:51 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] here it is - Brazilian delegation In-Reply-To: References: <49E67741-3368-4AA1-B6C8-49C79D9B9A7E@me.com> Message-ID: agree see my previous email with more names, representative of defense is also coming, which is interesting.... On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Though not in the list, Virgilio Almeida, from Ministry of Science and > Tech is coming too.. which is good... he was in Seoul Cyberspace Conference > and will be attending IGF on a last hour call from our President. > > Its actually very interesting, we have Ministry of Communications, Anatel, > CGI.br, Ministry of Science and Technology and an Ambassador. I've never > seen such a diverse and High Level Brazilian Delegation coming to the IGF. > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé < > joao.caribe at me.com> wrote: > >> Jesus! >> >> The Internet number one enemy Paulo Bernado, the Minister are coming? >> It's not good... >> >> _ >> João Carlos Caribé >> (021) 8761 1967 >> (021) 4042 7727 >> Skype joaocaribe >> Enviado via iPad >> >> Em 19/10/2013, às 10:18, Carolina Rossini >> escreveu: >> >> >> BRAZIL Ms.NararéBretas BRAZILMr.ValdirMoysés Simão BRAZILMr.Raphael Mandarino >> JrBRAZIL Mr. JefersonNacifBRAZIL Mr.Marcelo becharade Souza Hobaika >> BRAZILMr.Flavio Lenz CesarBRAZILMr. Paulo BernardoSilva BRAZILMr.Everton >> Lucero BRAZILMr.BENEDICTO FONSECABRAZILMr. AlexandreFontenelle >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list there it is - in >> addition to the names I have sent >> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 > > > -- *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: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 22:19:52 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 02:19:52 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Visa on Arrival letter for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is very unfortunate. I know at least 3 people who have canceled their participation because this letter did not come in time. I cannot say how many will cancel in all. This request was made for months, clarification was sought for weeks! The Chair of West Africa IGF and the Côte d'Ivoire delegation canceled after we coould not hear from you. Just sad about the whole thing. I had to personally travel to Nigeria to process a visa. I just need to register my disappointment. This letter could have come 7 days ago and it would have saved us a lot of trouble! Thanks, anyway. Nnenna On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM, IGF 2013 Committee wrote: > Dear Sir / Madam: > > > > We would like to inform you that Indonesia has updated the visa process > specifically for the 8th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) event. > > > > Please find the attached file, the official letter from Directorate > General of Immigration to the Immigration Office in Soekarno Hatta > International Airport (Jakarta) and Ngurah Rai Airport in Bali. We also > attached the unofficial translation in English for your reference. > > > > Based on this letter, your name is already on the list in the Immigration > Offices both in Jakarta and Bali Airport to enter Indonesia for High Level > Leaders Meeting and/or IGF 2013 with the Visa on Arrival mechanism. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation. Please inform us if you need further > information. > > > > With kind regards, > > IGF 2013 Committee > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 23:25:56 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 23:25:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] here it is - Brazilian delegation In-Reply-To: <49E67741-3368-4AA1-B6C8-49C79D9B9A7E@me.com> References: <49E67741-3368-4AA1-B6C8-49C79D9B9A7E@me.com> Message-ID: no..it is not... On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:24 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > Jesus! > > The Internet number one enemy Paulo Bernado, the Minister are coming? It's > not good... > > _ > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via iPad > > Em 19/10/2013, às 10:18, Carolina Rossini > escreveu: > > > BRAZIL Ms.NararéBretas BRAZILMr.ValdirMoysés Simão BRAZILMr.Raphael Mandarino > JrBRAZILMr. JefersonNacifBRAZIL Mr.Marcelo becharade Souza Hobaika BRAZIL > Mr.Flavio Lenz CesarBRAZILMr. Paulo BernardoSilva BRAZILMr.EvertonLucero > BRAZILMr.BENEDICTO FONSECABRAZILMr. AlexandreFontenelle > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list there it is - in > addition to the names I have sent > 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Oct 19 05:14:04 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 05:14:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] short paper on information flow, privacy and trade agreements Message-ID: this is a short paper Alberto Cerda and I wrote a couple of months ago. http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/tpp_and_free_flow.pdf Information Flow and Trade Agreements: History and Implications for Consumers’ Privacy Alberto Cerda and Carolina Rossini – May, 20131 -- 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Oct 19 06:16:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 06:16:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] comparison of principles and statments Message-ID: We have done this over the summer within my team, and it might also be helpful for this group. It is an extensive chart comparing every principles and statements from diverse stakeholder groups. I am also adding a short analysis of the rhetoric used by the groups in the statements. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: naf_otiissuecomparisonchartplusanalysis.zip Type: application/zip Size: 3007902 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Oct 7 21:25:56 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 21:25:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance: not just a US issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52535F24.50804@cis-india.org> A two-part piece I wrote in the NYT India blog on surveillance in India. Part 1: How Surveillance Works in India http://goo.gl/ahjDy4 Part 2: Can India Trust Its Government on Privacy? http://goo.gl/ih4PLW ~ Pranesh Anne Jellema [2013-10-04 09:21]: > Hi all > > Yet more evidence (this time from South Africa) that governments beyond the > US are using technology to escalate surveillance of civilians, and for > their own dubious reasons as well as to cooperate with the Americans. > > Full disclosure: the author is my partner. > > Cheers > > Anne > > http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2013/10/04/surveillance-may-turn-many-of-us-into-enemies > Surveillance may turn many of us into ‘enemies’ > BY ANTHONY BUTLER, > 04 OCTOBER 2013, 05:51 > > SOUTH Africa’s intelligence operatives often appear hopelessly inept. But > new technologies are empowering even the most incompetent spooks. > Revelations by the WikiLeaks "Spy Files" project and whistle-blower Edward > Snowden point to a large escalation in citizen surveillance. > > In South Africa, crime intelligence and private investigators routinely > circumvent the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act to access > individual citizens’ e-mails and phone calls. Targets can simply be added > to legitimate surveillance projects. Even more concerning is the likelihood > that there is already systematic blanket surveillance by the state. > > The Citizen Lab at Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs recently > revealed that FinSpy software is hosted by one or more South African > computers, almost certainly within the government. FinSpy inserts "trojans" > onto target computers and cellphones, allowing remote surveillance of > keystrokes, passwords, text messages, e-mails and voice data. It can even > turn a cellphone into a microphone to eavesdrop on private conversations > (which explains some politicians’ unnerving habit of removing the batteries > from their phones). > > Huawei Technologies, the world’s second-biggest telecommunications company, > is a recent investor in South Africa. According to one assessment in > Foreign Affairs magazine, Huawei is a Chinese intelligence agency > "masquerading as a tech business". Using software developed for domestic > repression, it could allegedly supply passive surveillance capability to a > friendly ruling party. > > A much smaller local company, VASTech, has been a focus of WikiLeaks’ > attention. The Wall Street Journal revealed in 2011 that the > Stellenbosch-based firm’s systems helped the Gadaffi regime monitor > millions of mobile and landline calls. This technology was also reportedly > sold to the Mubarak state. > > WikiLeaks-hosted company documents show that VASTech’s Zebra system can > monitor 20-million voice channels simultaneously. Such blanket interception > is complemented by archiving power that allows agents to "backtrack and > retrieve all the communications of suspects prior to an incident". Network > analysis permits the identification of "key relationships between > stakeholders" and lays bare "the structure and operation of syndicate > networks". > > Even anonymous cellphones are no defence against Zebra: it uses "speaker > identification" technology to "reveal unknown numbers and new mobile > devices used by targets". > > VASTech describes surveillance targets as "criminals and enemies of the > public". But it is officials in state agencies, and not software suppliers, > who decide how technology is used. Given that the state’s national > interception centre probably possesses such instruments, can citizens be > confident that intrastate oversight mechanisms are effective? > > Drug-smuggling, xenophobia, illicit commerce, and human trafficking, among > many other matters, are routinely touted as "threats to national security". > This could license the surveillance of a vast swathe of commercial entities > and citizens. > > Surveillance systems are excellent instruments for the mapping of internal > political party factions. It is possible to take a player in national, > provincial or local politics, reconstruct his "collaboration networks", and > eavesdrop on his archived conversations. There is nothing to prevent such > technology being used against recalcitrant trade unionists — especially > when, as State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele has observed, so much > industrial action is "illegal". > > The KwaZulu-Natal police’s Lt-Gen Solomon Makgale made the insightful > observation this week that service delivery protesters are also criminals. > A protest, he noted, "stops being a protest when a crime is committed … if > you are impeding the flow of traffic, then obviously you’ll be in conflict > with the law". > > South Africa is experiencing a rapid expansion in the reach and potential > power of state surveillance. It is unclear how to prevent what may become > an equally rapid rise in the number of citizens defined by state agencies > as "enemies of the public". > > • *Butler teaches politics at the University of Cape Town.* > -- 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: From shawna at apc.org Sat Oct 19 07:46:26 2013 From: shawna at apc.org (Shawna Finnegan) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:46:26 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Room change: Best Bits Meeting 2013 Message-ID: <52627112.4010304@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, The Best Bits meeting room for tomorrow has been changed to Ramayna, which is in the basement of Mantra hotel, level -1, two floors below the lobby. This room is bigger, with considerably better acoustics. Cheers, Shawna -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQGbBAEBAgAGBQJSYnESAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKbncL+N/3GLPQVZ8MgWaLRgslDMXO XtA/qKf0jB6Jb5zsSKO46UNX1vpKPWU1rYKtn9csvYSq5TDXkoZSrh4G+ojcT3fV GQrLKcBoDiKxvr6MRe7ts6FK9qSyKW8pj8GcRryYPNvj1jCE+g1Yef6N7dxturDf yf6knCPRgJS4fD1Dy5d2Gy7cGzhHhrGzk0J8xrehxulBjgUd+db8fVoS/xsQPbDB JtNPl8Qxg7ZgqVWTxISM63UAfFfS1bG9WwookEGXWWlpksocfHmVM5cvd+ptcCFn GSdNFu1IbDwFgxXuBmJ64BfodriRyqByIMhPWEahFWXa6S+E75+IvRybW0u9ften OKJjd/MgPRhZe27ybowL8trvsRtAMtiQYBmQWeAVXwPflRUGfgCetwDPSNQxdRbv jRvJZxmtzWq49x843+sLUxFLynIYBjUhkKVJWjaKwx/tg07YPl1/XwG++j2kuSma sCmIuyUI2SU1Emfox4NZqGiPjDSKUTgfB4fT7Qt2 =zNNL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Oct 19 07:46:58 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 06:46:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] here it is - Brazilian delegation In-Reply-To: <49E67741-3368-4AA1-B6C8-49C79D9B9A7E@me.com> References: <49E67741-3368-4AA1-B6C8-49C79D9B9A7E@me.com> Message-ID: Hmmm.... Isn't it possible that participating in, or at least observing the IGF and listening to the discussions will benefit? Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 18 October 2013 22:24, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > Jesus! > > The Internet number one enemy Paulo Bernado, the Minister are coming? It's > not good... > > _ > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via iPad > > Em 19/10/2013, às 10:18, Carolina Rossini > escreveu: > > > BRAZIL Ms.NararéBretas BRAZILMr.ValdirMoysés Simão BRAZILMr.Raphael Mandarino > JrBRAZIL Mr. JefersonNacifBRAZIL Mr.Marcelo becharade Souza Hobaika BRAZIL > Mr.Flavio Lenz CesarBRAZILMr. Paulo BernardoSilva BRAZILMr.EvertonLucero > BRAZILMr.BENEDICTO FONSECABRAZILMr. AlexandreFontenelle > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list there it is - in > addition to the names I have sent > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 19 07:51:30 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:21:30 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> <52602829.9020902@itforchange.net> <526132DA.2050803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52627242.7060401@itforchange.net> On Friday 18 October 2013 08:48 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Friday 18 October 2013 08:45 AM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >> >> However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement >> mechanism is also of no use, because India would not submit >> to it.... Well, isnt that a somewhat fatalistic attitude to >> take towards future of global governance of the Internet. >> What other option there is to try to get such a enforcement >> mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to it? >> >> >> This would have been better done if you had avoided interpreting >> what I am saying, and just quoted me as is your usual custom. > > Chinmayi, relax, and just argue your positions without getting > personal! > > > > I thought I was doing exactly that. Apologies if you saw it as getting > personal. In fact, I should apologise... I completely misread your email above. Just tense in-travel email browsing I suppose... sorry again. parminder > >> I believe what I said was: "Although I do like your vision of >> CIRP as something that enables individual citizens, our country's >> history with institutions like the International Criminal Court >> and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not really offer much hope >> that India will ever submit itself to a system in which it is >> accountable to individuals in an international human rights forum." > > There isnt any big interpretative jump from saying that one doesnt > see much hope in a proposed institutional mechanism, for the > specific purpose in hand, to be taken to suggest that one doesnt > see any use in pursing that particular proposal. But if instead > you still find such a proposal useful, just say it. > > > It is a jump to say that if one sees a particular flaw with a > solution, one is unwilling to discuss it. > > Anyway, i think i am bowing out of this thread. Apologies to all our > reluctant spectators. Hope to meet you all soon. > > Best, > > Chinmayi > > > parminder > >> >> I don't think that it was fatalistic or a refusal to discuss this >> further. It is an effort to contribute to the discussion - I >> think that models which rest completely on unrealistic >> assumptions about what governments will do (note that this does >> not mean that we need to assume the opposite) only mean that the >> models will fail. So discussions of international digital rights >> fora cannot completely ignore the way in which the US and India >> see their sovereignty in other international human rights fora. >> Having acknowledged this, I am very happy to engage further, and >> look for ways in which governments can be incentivised to consent >> to some accountability, whether through general human rights >> institutions or specialised digital rights institutions. >> >> >> As far as CIRP is concerned, if we both agree that it was not a >> digital rights enforcement mechanism proposal, I think it is fair >> for me to say that it would not have created immediate >> accountability of states to individuals. Whether it would have >> inevitably resulted in the creation of a digital rights >> enforcement mechanism is a much longer conversation, that we can >> save for Bali. >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:40 PM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN >>> CIRP as offering much accountability (as far as citizens are >>> concerned) when states commit human rights violations. India >>> has not exactly had the best track record when it comes to >>> making itself accountable before international human rights >>> institutions for its domestic policies (neither incidentally >>> has t >> >> Chinmayi, >> >> A digital rights court or some other rights enforcement >> mechanism is completely at another level than having an >> anchor agency in the UN system which can take up IG related >> issues, which alone CIRP was really supposed to be. In any >> case, to set up such a digital rights enforcement mechanism >> will need some kind of a prior international agreement that, >> in the first place, needs an IG related anchor space in the >> UN system . .... So, even if you want a digital rights >> enforcement mechanism - which as you rightly observe, I too >> have sought - then a CIRP kind of body can only enable it... >> It doesnt go against such a mechanise. If you want such >> enforcement mechanism in addition to a CIRP like space, then >> you put that demand as a CIRP plus one..... which is entirely >> fine with me. >> >> However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement >> mechanism is also of no use, because India would not submit >> to it.... Well, isnt that a somewhat fatalistic attitude to >> take towards future of global governance of the Internet. >> What other option there is to try to get such a enforcement >> mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to it? >> Other than perhaps to accept US as the global policemen, a >> role which it often arrogates to itself, wherever possible. >> There must be some direction that is the right one for us to >> go towards, however difficult the path may be. >> >> >>> he US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance >>> systems are being built in India and that there has been >>> quite a lot of resistance to government transparency when it >>> comes to blocking or interception >> >> Yes, it has to resisted and fought in every way possible. An >> international regime - starting from a soft one towards >> increasingly harder ones - as we progress civilisationally - >> can only help that. On the other hand, I cant see how such a >> regime can hurt. >> >> >>> (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes >>> offered as justification for domestic policy). >> >> I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But >> people can say whatever they want, and we cant stop it. >> >> >> parminder >> >>> I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same >>> light as President Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be >>> a call for states to be accountable to individuals. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> I do not think that our political system offers much >>> recourse to surveillance at the moment either - you can >>> hardly challenge a surveillance order if you never find out >>> about it. >> >> >>> >>> Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that >>> enables individual citizens, our country's history with >>> institutions like the International Criminal Court and the >>> ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not really offer much hope >>> that India will ever submit itself to a system in which it >>> is accountable to individuals in an international human >>> rights forum. >>> >>> See you at the IGF :) >>> Chinmayi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >>>> >>>> We can't overlook that the United States is also a >>>> member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to >>>> mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point >>>> lower than India in the Freedom House survey. >>>> Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has >>>> suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, >>>> it is quite debatable what was the "wrong >>>> direction" to take in opposition to the >>>> status-quoist position on Internet governance taken >>>> by the FOC states. >>>> >>>> >>>> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU >>>> treaty did not really undermine Internet freedom >>>> (Article 1.1 (a) says “These Regulations do not address >>>> the content-related aspects of telecommunications”) in >>>> the end. >>>> >>>> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does >>>> want UN oversight of countries with respect to the >>>> Internet. Given that her concern seems to be that there >>>> should be some accountability with respect to human >>>> rights, I sympathise. The Indian government seems to be >>>> in I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite correctly >>>> that while everybody else was being told off for human >>>> rights violations, the countries telling them off were >>>> also committing huge violations. While I certainly do >>>> not subscribe to the idea that one nation's human >>>> rights violations somehow justify another's (I still >>>> would not support the resolution that India presented >>>> to the UN last year), >>> >>> Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into >>> human rights violations? Also there is a specific and >>> clear difference between US violating rights of people >>> in a situation where it admits of no avenues of >>> recourse, even at a theoretical -political level, and >>> when such things happen within a political system which >>> has its dynamics that can be engaged to avoid or reduce >>> such violation. CIRP like global governance proposals >>> are about having a global political regime within which >>> then efforts can be made to fight for our rights, the >>> way we do within the Indian political system. NSA issue >>> cannot be put as just one country doing rights violation >>> against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative >>> different kind, from the very important issue of >>> domestic surveillances that we all struggle against. >>> >>>> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept >>>> do-nothing as the best model. >>> >>> Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere >>> about what 'should be done', or even the directions >>> towards that kind of a thing. >>> >>> Best , parminder >>>> >>>> I have never been comfortable with thinking about >>>> issues purely in terms of who is on which side. This >>>> was my discomfort with the ITRs debates - that many >>>> were stepping away from the actual text and merely >>>> pointing out who was signing as an argument for not >>>> signing. Isn't it better to just discuss the specifics >>>> of treaties and organisations and determine on that >>>> basis whether it is necessary, helpful or terrible to >>>> subscribe to them? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Chinmayi >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom >>>>> Online Coalition >>>>> , a >>>>> group of governments committed to advance Internet >>>>> freedom, it would send a positive message to the >>>>> international community. Countries that join the >>>>> coalition endorse a statement supporting the >>>>> principle that all people enjoy the same human >>>>> rights online as they do offline. From Latin >>>>> America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of >>>>> the coalition. On the other hand, other countries >>>>> that are not members of the coalition, such as >>>>> Russia, China and India, have taken steps in the >>>>> wrong direction. For example, in the past, they >>>>> have presented draft resolutions to the UN General >>>>> assembly, which would have put in risk Internet >>>>> governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online >>>>> Coalition would be a turning point and a step in >>>>> the opposite direction, demonstrating that it >>>>> takes some distance from its partners in groups >>>>> such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) >>>>> and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >>>>> >>>> >>>> It would be very interesting to read a reply from >>>> the perspective of India. We can't overlook that >>>> the United States is also a member of the Freedom >>>> Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which >>>> is ranked a full point lower than India in the >>>> Freedom House survey. Given that the "Internet >>>> freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from >>>> the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was >>>> the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the >>>> status-quoist position on Internet governance taken >>>> by the FOC states. Hmm. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *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: From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Sat Oct 19 09:47:00 2013 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:17:00 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: <52627242.7060401@itforchange.net> References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> <52602829.9020902@itforchange.net> <526132DA.2050803@itforchange.net> <52627242.7060401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: No worries at all :)I am trying to work on my turn of phrase - so easy to sound awful on email. Hope today went well and l look forward to seeing you tomorrow. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Oct 19 10:55:47 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 23:55:47 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] comparison of principles and statments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 19, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > We have done this over the summer within my team, and it might also be > helpful for this group. It is an extensive chart comparing every > principles and statements from diverse stakeholder groups. I am also > adding a short analysis of the rhetoric used by the groups in the > statements. Carolina - Thanks to you (and Jeonghyun) for putting this together and sharing it! It is particularly helpful taxonomy of areas of similarity in the various Internet principles out there; it makes one wonder whether review of this information by the various stakeholder groups might lead to finding areas of commonality of principles and beliefs for joint follow-up. Thanks again! /John Disclaimer: My views alone (but hopefully in common with others appreciating this effort) From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Oct 19 12:22:24 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 01:22:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <0FECEBD0-BE2E-41AF-8156-983EFB65ED13@istaff.org> On Oct 19, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > This statement still concentrates on ICANN-like functions: DNS and IP address > assignment, no matter the desire for a platform to discuss 'orphan issues". > > Those (ICANN like functions) are the life blood of this form of > "Internet governance," but they're trivia to the users of the world, > who want substantive rights that no non-governmental organization with > headquarters in Los Angeles and two other places can > provide or is this the usual problem of existing organizations taking themselves or their relevance > seriously and not taking the people who make and use the Net---not > the people who run the routers and those who like to believe > they regulate those who run the routers---seriously at all? The "globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing" is indeed a relatively small task, and as long as it is being performed appropriately is a topic that should have little interest to the average Internet user, and only slightly more interest to the industry and government that has interest in same. You might compare it to the small tasks of coordinating Internet protocol port numbers or coordinating earth satellite orbits (I have to make both comparisons so that no one takes offense... ;-) Even when done perfectly, they don't improve the state of the Internet; there are still be governments engaged in surveillance, criminal activity rampant, and industry players making use of personal data in surprising ways with nominal user knowledge & consent. The fact that globalizing the ICANN/IANA functions is a relatively small task doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile; it just means that we've got a very long road ahead to get the Internet to where it really should be as a tool for mankind. I will note that the Internet itself started out with very modest capabilities in communications, but that early success led to the amazing functionality of today; in a similar way, it is possible that some success in globalizing this ICANN/IANA foundational piece may prove important in a small way when dealing with the bigger questions that you noted in your email. I'm going to respond separately regarding those questions, because you note some real challenges that deserve their own consideration. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Lao-tzu From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Oct 19 18:38:39 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:38:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 (more) In-Reply-To: <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <6033E176-1361-4D9D-BA7C-576947B88A89@istaff.org> On Oct 19, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (whatever it is, as we are still discussing that) make rules that > subject listeners to the rule of law at home, and prohibit the massive > monitoring of other peoples' societies abroad? > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (organization/network) impose all ports, > all services neutrality on network operators so corruptly in bed with > governments around the world that no one knows how to tease out all > the criminal connections? > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder decide whether > "sharing services" are allowed to use monitoring technology that makes > supposedly private sharing the material for "customized advertising" > and "personal endorsement"? Is fairness regulation in the economies > of the world irrelevant to the future of the Net, or are > "multi-stakeholder" organizations going to get more regulatory power > than national governments are presently prepared to exercise on behalf > of their citizens? > > Question: How are these multi-stakeholder organizations planning to > deal with governments that refuse to accept their decisions? Is a > future ICANN going to manufacture its own blue helmets, and send them > into Saudi Arabia or China? Mishi - I acknowledged that a solely multi-stakeholder based approach to several of the above situations will not prove sufficient to address the question, but that is to be expected, as some of the above questions are indeed expressed in terms focused on the role of governments in the determining and enforcing of public policy mandates... However, please recognize that even the presence of a wonderful multi-lateral treaty for addressing such questions over the Internet won't actually mean that you will necessarily have any relief to these problems, as governments have been known to take reservations to protect their own interests (e.g. for "national security or sovereignty reasons") and/or to yield on points that may be less important to their immediate needs (even if important to civil society) in exchange for progress on other unrelated agendas of the day. Additionally, it is worth noting in many countries the role of industry and its ample lobbying efforts in influencing outcomes from such structures. I am not saying that "we should not have governments involved"; to the contrary, I strongly believe there is an entire class of problems that are well beyond the ability of a multi-stakeholder, predominantly self-regulatory approach to meaningfully address. One can look at the lack of existing progress in Internet areas such as rights of privacy, freedom of expression, and access to due process for cybercrime as clear evidence of the limits of today's approach. Governments could help today in addressing these issues within their own scope if there were common agreement on the applicable Internet public policy norms and corresponding globally-interoperable mechanisms and practices. Some strengths of the current multistakeholder approach is that has shown more consistent acceptance of inputs from all parties (including civil society and governments) and while that process may have fallen short of folks aspirations, it also has still managed to keep the Internet coordinated and operating globally, all while maintaining maximal flexibility and openness to innovation. Many of the things that happen today on the Internet that enable all people to have a voice and let them to share their views openly exist only because anyone can innovate and create new ways of using the Internet (without asking first any authority for a license or permission), and we must not lose that openness in this next phase of Internet evolution. So, the questions that I have are a little different - they are whether we can do the following: - Add governments to the discussion of a better Internet, one which meets common public policy norms, without the discussion becoming completely government-led, closed to most of us, "bought" by the few, or fragmented into considering solutions of less than global scope - Work with governments so that they have recognition of the value of their cooperating in a globally connecting well-functional Internet and that the benefit received will likely exceed the value of their other objectives - Get the technical community to recognize that governments working openly with the rest of us can actually be a valuable ally in overall Internet coordination and operation, even to the point of potentially gaining some traction on problems (such as privacy and cybercrime) which have been historically hard to tackle from a predominantly self-regulating model. - Get civil society to continue work with both industry/technical folks (who have always provided civil society a voice, but not always heavily weighed due to voluntary nature of past Internet coordination) and governments (who may have agreed with civil society's public policy concerns, but never had a ready way to engage to get these needs addressed on a global basis.) If the above can be done, then the answer to your each earlier questions is the same answer: "Yes, that situation can be addressed based on norms developed by us all, via mechanisms and practices which are global in scope but implemented locally, and facilitated by governments as needed." Best wishes, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Feel free to use or discard as desired. From pranesh at cis-india.org Sat Oct 19 20:54:29 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 08:54:29 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [tech] Two IETF Internet Drafts Message-ID: <526329C5.6040005@cis-india.org> Dear all, Here are two recent IETF Internet Drafts (which have a life-span of six months). They will be especially useful for the discussions this morning on technical possibilities for surveillance. Phillip Hallam-Baker's PRISM-Proof Security Considerations (September 11, 2013): http://goo.gl/TluexF Brian Carpenter's Prismatic Reflections (September 19, 2013): http://goo.gl/Hj1Ybq Apart from that here's the Wikipedia page about A5/1 and A5/3 GSM encryption: Regards, 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 -------------------- 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: From avri at acm.org Sat Oct 19 21:09:27 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:09:27 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [tech] Two IETF Internet Drafts In-Reply-To: <526329C5.6040005@cis-india.org> References: <526329C5.6040005@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <0DDEFB36-2423-40F1-A14E-00126D77613C@acm.org> Hi, One expects that theses docs will either be revised thus gain 6 month extension with every update or may be absorbed into future documents. And they will remian forever accessible even if they are no longer active internet drafts. Also there is the RFC that was mentioned yesterday: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973 Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols avri On 20 Oct 2013, at 08:54, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear all, > Here are two recent IETF Internet Drafts (which have a life-span of six > months). They will be especially useful for the discussions this > morning on technical possibilities for surveillance. > > Phillip Hallam-Baker's PRISM-Proof Security Considerations (September > 11, 2013): > http://goo.gl/TluexF > > Brian Carpenter's Prismatic Reflections (September 19, 2013): > http://goo.gl/Hj1Ybq > > Apart from that here's the Wikipedia page about A5/1 and A5/3 GSM > encryption: > > > > > Regards, > 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 > -------------------- > 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: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 19 21:53:00 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:23:00 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence In-Reply-To: <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> References: <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5263377C.7070504@itforchange.net> On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all > > Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term > strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its > favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this > strategy > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 > > We need to discuss what this means from the perspective of protecting > ourselves from getting unknowingly corrupted and compromised. This > discussions needs to happen both in regard to international civil > society in IG as a whole and in regard to BestBits in particular. very interesting... These are very significant structural issues of global IG that we cannot avoid confronting directly. How much civil society will really be taken seriously depends on how much moral legitimacy we have, which is one of the chief legitimacies of civil society. And such legitimacy would come from confronting such issues directly, and being rather upfront about it. I think there should be a basic transparency (and accountabiltiy) code of conduct for civil society in IG space, at least that part of civil society that works together in spaces like BestBits and IGC. May be today's BestBits meeting can discuss this in the session on internal BB issues etc. I would greatly prefer if we do so. Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how google was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related civil society discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this german news item, but just in case... If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system of Germany, we can well judge what would it be like iin places with less mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging from Korea to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and Latin America, Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil society groups. parminder > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Oct 8 00:04:54 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:04:54 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> On 08/10/13 09:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: > apart from process related issues of lack of representation of > developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a > statement of principles that had developing world participation look > different? There is only one way to find out, and that is to deal with the process related issues. But for a rough idea, we can look at the Brazilian Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. Notable additions compared to the OECD principles: * *Universality:* Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society, for the benefit of all * *Standardization and interoperability:* The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to participate in its development * *Neutrality of the network:* Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment and notable omissions: * Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services; * Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; * Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; * Maximise individual empowerment; * Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. More could be written about this, but there is a very different emphasis with the OECD principles much more individualistic and biased towards trade, than the Brazilian principles. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Oct 19 21:58:26 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 21:58:26 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] News from Brazil Message-ID: In this press release, posted in many official Brazilian websites, two things called my attention and concern: http://www.comunicacoes.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/todas-as-noticias/institucionais/28693-brasil-vai-reforcar-em-forum-internacional-a-necessidade-de-uma-nova-governanca-da-internet 1) the fact that Paulo Bernardo (Ministry of Communications) is leading the delegation (and nobody as high as him from Itamaraty is here) 2) and the fact they still use "multilateral" when talking about governance. "Governança democrática, multilateral e aberta, exercida com transparência, estimulando a criação coletiva e a participação da sociedade, dos governos e do setor privado;" -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 19 22:13:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 04:13:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: [perpass] Some personal thoughts on the impact of pervasive monitoring Message-ID: <20131020041344.48be111e@swan.bollow.ch> Here is another IMO very important draft. It's short and well worth reading regardless of whether your personal professional background is from the technical side or not. Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 18:21:31 -0700 Von: Ted Hardie An: perpass at ietf.org Betreff: [perpass] Some personal thoughts on the impact of pervasive monitoring Like most folks involved in this list, I have a personal response to the current situation and some thoughts on how it will impact my or our work in the future. Since I expect we will pretty short of mic time in Vancouver for thoughts like these, I decided to write them out. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardie-perpass-touchstone-00 is the result. It's quite short but a quick summary is this: Pervasive monitoring induces self-censoring which harms the Internet and its users. At the scale of the modern Internet, that means it harms humanity. We can and should change our approach to Internet engineering and system design to deal with this. There will be costs for that, but we should pay them. It helps me, personally, to focus on a single user when asking whether a system or protocol is appropriate in the current environment. The draft lays out why. regards, Ted Hardie From Lea at gp-digital.org Sat Oct 19 23:14:57 2013 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 04:14:57 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Latest draft of the Seoul principles/framework Message-ID: Find the latest iteration of the Seoul principles attached. And below, the comments we submitted to the UK government. Happy to further discuss. Best, Lea …. Many thanks for meeting us earlier and for offering to pass our comments about the Seoul principles/ Seoul Cyberspace Conference onto the UK Government. Here's a summary of the main points we'd like to make on behalf of our organisations (Access, International; Global Partners Digital, UK; Center for Technology and Society of the Fundacao Getulo Vargas, Brazil). Positive steps * The draft Seoul Principles (version Sep/27/2013) contain positive elements that are to be commended. In particular, language reinforcing human rights, recognizing the global and open nature of the internet, calling for great capacity building, recognizing the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity, the need for greater efforts to close the digital divide, and reiterating the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution (A/HRC/RES/20/8) that the same rights people have offline apply online as well. Commitment to multi-stakeholderism * While the draft Principles recognize the “essential contribution” civil society and other non-governmental stakeholder groups provide and asserts that “the international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Government, the private sector, civil society, academic and technical communities and international organizations,” it doesn’t appear that civil society was actually given any public opportunity to comment on the development of these principles. Recalling the Tunis Agenda, this stands in sharp contrast to the multistakeholder model which has been recognized widely as best practice in internet policymaking. * The draft Seoul Principles cite back to many other documents discussing norms on the internet. Problematically, many of the documents cited are themselves the product of processes that were insufficiently open, inclusive, and multistakeholder. In particular, we note, the UN Government Group of Experts (GGE) report (A/68/98), which was drafted by 15 government representatives, and only 15 governments. * We note that there has been very limited civil society participation throughout the London process. At this year's conference, a number of local and international civil society representatives were denied registration. When civil society has been included, their involvement has been marginalized. For example, the "social and cultural benefits" panel was the only panel this year featuring civil society speakers. If there is a future meeting, the process would be strengthened by greater civil society participation both in the audience as well as on various panels. This similarly applies to other stakeholder groups, e.g. the technical community. Substantive issues While acknowledging that the organisers cannot change the underlying language of reports that are cited in the draft Seoul principles, we would like to raise the following concerns with some of the included language, which we think could have negative consequences for protection and promotion of user rights online: * Article 3.1 states that “Governments, business, organizations and individual owners and users of information technologies (cyberspace) must assume responsibility for and take steps to enhance the security of the information technologies (UNGA/RES/64/211)…” We question what kind of obligations (and intermediary liability) this creates for users and businesses? And what actions will States be justified in taking to encourage such “responsibility” or punish those who don’t? * Article 4.5 on international security: "State Sovereignty and international norms and principles that flow from sovereignty apply to State conduct of ICT-related activities, and to their jurisdiction over ICT infrastructure within their territory.（UN GGE Report 2013, Para 20)" - It is questionable whether the principle of territorial state sovereignty should apply to internet governance and to what extent. Indiscriminate application of the principle of state sovereignty could lead to balkanisation of the internet. Consider the similarity in language to the proposals by many authoritarian states around "national internet segment" put forward at last year's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). * Articles 4.6 and 5.2 make references to “unlawful” and “criminal or terrorist use of ICTs.” This is dangerously vague language that can be used to justify restrictive internet practices and could easily provide political cover to governments who would violate user rights. Moreover, there is no international consensus on what constitutes "unlawful" or "criminal misuse" of the interent, which raises questions of what will happen when a company or user in one jurisdiction runs afoul of what is considered "unlawful," "criminal," or "terrorist" use of the internet in another country. This presents a problem for a document seeking to clarify norms in cyberspace. This is also concerning when taking in the context of principles that encourage greater international collaboration in Article 5.2. There’s no mention of procedural protections, due process, or the rule of law, which is particularly worrying as "intensifying cooperation" has been used in the past to increase voluntary, informal information exchange and sharing of worst practice especially in regards to surveillance techniques. As the draft Principles currently stand, our organizations would not be able to support them given the procedural and substantive concerns raised here. We further understand that the 9/27 draft is possibly not the last iteration of the Seoul Principles, and would be interested and available to provide feedback and input on future versions. As we said earlier, we are open to continuing this dialogue (including with other government delegations), particularly as the London Process moves forward with a fourth conference. ---- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Principles(0927).docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 33569 bytes Desc: Draft Principles(0927).docx URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Oct 19 23:40:00 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 11:40:00 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] comparison of principles and statments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/10/2013, at 6:16 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > We have done this over the summer within my team, and it might also be > helpful for this group. It is an extensive chart comparing every > principles and statements from diverse stakeholder groups. I am also > adding a short analysis of the rhetoric used by the groups in the > statements. Excellent - I've uploaded this to the Best Bits website as a background paper - the PDFs may preview in your browser, though that isn't working for me right now, but you can also click on the links/pages to download them: http://bestbits.net/issue-comparison-of-major-declarations-on-internet-freedom/ The "Internet governance processes: Visualising the playing field" diagram is also linked as a background document now. -- 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: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From joy at apc.org Sun Oct 20 00:31:57 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:31:57 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Day 1: Multi-stakeholder Processes and IGF Discussion Message-ID: <52635CBD.9080104@apc.org> Hi all Sharing with you a very rough summary of the notes from working groups on the morning session on Day 1: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms . This is not a report of the discussion, but simply an attempt to capture the apparent areas of commonality as well as the specific recommendations made by some groups that were forwarded by those who made notes during the small group discussion and during report back. Having spoken with Jeremy, we think the document is too long and complex for developing consensus and we have run out of time for that, but instead suggest that those who wish to keep working on possible principles do so as an input to the Best Bits workshop on Day 3 of the IGF: I note that Parminder has not been able to look at the document yet. Kind regards Joy Liddicoat From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 20 01:14:39 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 13:14:39 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Four principles for presentation at meeting of Montevideo signatories this afternoon Message-ID: <8E185FC7-E6E7-4FF7-99C0-E63967F7DEF8@ciroap.org> Here are the principles that those present in Bali agreed to present at the meeting of Montevideo signatories this afternoon: The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and they should be linked with CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. The event should extend beyond speeches and presentations, and modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing. These could also, I hope, form the core of our statement on the issue, to be finalised after the Bali IGF (as there were suggestions it be a statement rather than a 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: -------------- 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: From Lea at gp-digital.org Sun Oct 20 01:15:23 2013 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 06:15:23 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits Flickr stream Message-ID: Hi all, I've put some pictures from Day 1 on the BB Flickr page. You can see them here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/105891848 at N03/ Enjoy! Lea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Sun Oct 20 02:47:35 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 08:47:35 +0200 Subject: Fw: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence Message-ID: <20131020084735.668ce990@swan.bollow.ch> Forwarding (I had accidentally used an outdated address for the BestBits list). Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 03:29:34 +0200 Von: Norbert Bollow An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org , bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence Parminder wrote: > On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term > > strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its > > favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this > > strategy > > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > > http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 > > Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how > google was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related > civil society discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this > german news item, but just in case... This sounds like you may have been looking only at the second of the two links that I posted. :-) Anyway I also have first hand knowledge of what Microsoft and Google are doing in Switzerland (they do it in different areas, Microsoft in regard to software used in the public school/education system), and of how way too many people are naïvely going along with it. Very much banana republic like. > If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system > of Germany, we can well judge what would it be like in places with > less mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging > from Korea to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and > Latin America, Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil > society groups. While I do not have any significant first hand knowledge in regard to those parts of the world, what you're writing here sounds extremely plausible -- and scary!!! Greetings, Norbert From anne at webfoundation.org Sun Oct 20 03:26:31 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 15:26:31 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Timeline and process for UN post-2015 development goals Message-ID: The following may be helpful for mapping how WSIS processes could feed into the post-2015 goals or "Sustainable Development Goals": Overall timeline is in the bottom row of this table: http://www.sustainabledevelopment2015.org/index.php/about/timeline A lot of SDG agenda-setting has already been done and UNSG has already issued a framework, so in that sense we/WSIS are late to the party. But from now to August 2014, the Open Working Groupwill be an important site for horse-trading on 'what's in, what's out' before the final SDGs are adopted (if all goes well) by the UNGA in Sept 2015. The 9-13 Dec 2013 session of the Working Group is due to address ICT issues under the banner of 'access to science and technology'. The background brief for this session is here: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2081Science%20Tech%20Issues%20Brief_Final_14_Oct.pdf ECOSOC-registered organisations can still submit proposals for side events during the Dec meeting. Main civil society platform for influencing the SDGs is http://www.worldwewant2015.org/ (created/supported by the UN so not wholly independent). best Anne -- 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: From kichango at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 03:37:20 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:37:20 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Four principles for presentation at meeting of Montevideo signatories this afternoon In-Reply-To: <8E185FC7-E6E7-4FF7-99C0-E63967F7DEF8@ciroap.org> References: <8E185FC7-E6E7-4FF7-99C0-E63967F7DEF8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremey, Could you please provide some background to this to help the understanding of those of us not in Bali? Thanks mawaki On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here are the principles that those present in Bali agreed to present at > the meeting of Montevideo signatories this afternoon: > > - The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and > in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. > > > - A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the > future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and > they should be linked with CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. > > > - The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is > required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented > information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that > such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all > countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human > rights. > > > - The event should extend beyond speeches and presentations, and modalities > should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote > participants, to participate on an equal footing. > > These could also, I hope, form the core of our statement on the issue, to > be finalised after the Bali IGF (as there were suggestions it be a > statement rather than a 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. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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: From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Oct 8 01:03:33 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 01:03:33 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> A top note that the OECD principles are actually OECD+Egypt+Business+Tech principles, which CISAC helped shape but didn't sign on to. Rest inline: Jeremy Malcolm [2013-10-08 00:04]: > On 08/10/13 09:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: >> apart from process related issues of lack of representation of >> developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a >> statement of principles that had developing world participation look >> different? > > There is only one way to find out, and that is to deal with the process > related issues. But for a rough idea, we can look at the Brazilian > Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. Notable > additions compared to the OECD principles: > > * *Universality:* Internet access must be universal so that it becomes > a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the > formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society, for the > benefit of all > * *Standardization and interoperability:* The Internet must be based > on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to > participate in its development On standards, the OECD principles (under "Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet") states: "The Internet’s openness also stems from globally accepted, consensus driven technical standards that support global product markets and communications. The roles, openness, and competencies of the global multi-stakeholder institutions that govern standards for different layers of Internet components should be recognised and their contribution should be sought on the different technical elements of public policy objectives." > * *Neutrality of the network:* Filtering or traffic privileges must > meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, > commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of > discrimination or preferential treatment "Maintaining technology neutrality and appropriate quality for all Internet services is also important to ensure an open and dynamic Internet environment. Provision of open Internet access services is critical for the Internet economy." > and notable omissions: > > * Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services; > * Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; > * Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; > * Maximise individual empowerment; > * Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. > > > More could be written about this, but there is a very different emphasis > with the OECD principles much more individualistic and biased towards > trade, than the Brazilian principles. OECD is primarily about economic/trade issues (though not solely about such issues), so that bias is perhaps to be expected. In the 2008 Seoul Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, there were 10 developing countries (Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey) represented in the 39 individual countries that signed the declaration. Sure, the developing countries were outnumbered 3:1, but they still agreed to: * Ensure respect for intellectual property rights. * Create a market-friendly environment for convergence that encourages infrastructure investment, higher levels of connectivity and innovative services and applications. * Promote Internet-based innovation, competition, and user choice. * Acting as a key driver for the creation of enterprises and communities and stimulating closer global co-operation. * Promote the secure and responsible use of the Internet that respects international social and ethical norms and that increases transparency and accountability. * Establish a regulatory environment that assures a level playing field for competition. * Stimulate investment and competition in the development of high capacity information and communication infrastructures and the delivery of Internet-enabled services within and across borders. * Maintain an open environment that supports the free flow of information, research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business transformation. * Combine efforts to combat digital piracy with innovative approaches which provide creators and rights holders with incentives to create and disseminate works in a manner that is beneficial to creators, users and our economies as a whole. * Increase cross-border co-operation of governments and enforcement authorities in the areas of improving cyber-security, combating spam, as well as protecting privacy, consumers and minors. * Empowering consumers and users in online transactions and exchanges. Most (all?) of the things that you'd think developing countries would omit were accepted by 10 of them. Just sayin'. Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------+ 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: From anne at webfoundation.org Sun Oct 20 09:28:45 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:28:45 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Presentation on WebWeWant campaign at today's Best Bits meeting Message-ID: Hi all Thanks for the opportunity to talk about the WebWeWant campaign in today's meeting and at dinner. The slides I presented are attached. We'll circulate a more detailed note soon, but in the meantime, we'd really value your comments, questions and ideas - either by email, or if you're in Bali, in person with any of the Advisory Committee members who are around (e.g. Joy or Anriette; Parminder; Jeremy; Gene; me or Nnenna). Best Anne 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WWW Best Bits.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 52090 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 10:02:15 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:02:15 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Bali Departure fee Message-ID: Please, notice that if you are leaving Bali from Denpasar airport, there is a departure airport tax of Rp150000 that needs to be paid in local currency. 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 20 10:26:56 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 22:26:56 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Four principles for presentation at meeting of Montevideo signatories this afternoon In-Reply-To: References: <8E185FC7-E6E7-4FF7-99C0-E63967F7DEF8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4518E4F2-5F31-417E-ABDA-90BF020452B3@ciroap.org> On 20/10/2013, at 3:37 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Jeremey, > Could you please provide some background to this to help the understanding of those of us not in Bali? Thanks A full update on the latest news about the Rio summit will be posted to the list soon (I think by Jochai Ben-Avie and/or Valeria Betancourt), and in the meantime for highlights you can take a look at the @_bestbits twitter account and other twitter feeds mentioning #bestbits. But briefly, there was a meeting today held by the technical community organisations, to which we were invited on short notice, at which it was promised that they would explain more about the motivation behind their recent Montevideo statement through which they had strengthened their support for the denationalisation of ICANN oversight. The four principles that I posted to the list were what we developed today for that meeting as some basic civil society principles. Whilst we had attempted a letter, that proved too much, but at least we have just placed our stake in the sand in this pre-agenda-setting phase, and that's important. We will continue working on a letter, or - it seems now - a statement, and it seems likely that will have to be done by Wednesday. There'll be a get-together tomorrow at 4pm to discuss next steps (as I understand - but more on this anon). In the end our principles were a little overshadowed by what transpired at the meeting - Fadi Chehadé revealing new details about the Rio summit on Internet governance that he and President Rousseff had recently announced. Not least that they plan to produce principles, an institutional framework, and a decision-making mechanism - and that this will be done with (only) three representatives per country. Selected by magic? Who knows. There is much more to be said about the whole thing (and it will be), but there's some background in a nutshell for you. Others may have more comments to offer. -- 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: -------------- 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 10:38:38 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:38:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Oxford will host Cyber Security Capacity Building Centre Message-ID: as mentioned today: Oxford will host Cyber Security Capacity Building Centre https://www.gov.uk/government/news/oxford-will-host-cyber-security-capacity-building-centre -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 18 16:15:57 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:15:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Message-ID: I agree the agenda may be quite ambitious. But I think BR is aiming high. --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller Date: 18-10-2013 14:09 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,parminder ,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Ian Peter ,Brenden Kuerbis ,NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 On Thursday 17 October 2013 05:49 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will > probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the > Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the > Internet". > > The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this > huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for > a surprise very soon. :) Yes, Carlos, but....if the community cannot come together on agreed mechanisms and institutions for global governance of the so-called "phone list" (really bad metaphor, by the way) how is it able to take on larger problems? In other words, if we can't do ICANN right, why should anyone think we can do anything else? I have always viewed ICANN as a test case of our capabilities for global governance, not as intrinsically interesting in itself. Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler problem (ICANN). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Oct 19 16:59:49 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:59:49 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] comparison of principles and statments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5262F2C5.1070609@cafonso.ca> Thanks for this, Carolina! [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/19/2013 07:16 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > We have done this over the summer within my team, and it might also be > helpful for this group. It is an extensive chart comparing every > principles and statements from diverse stakeholder groups. I am also > adding a short analysis of the rhetoric used by the groups in the > statements. > > Best, > > C > From brett at accessnow.org Sun Oct 20 11:55:03 2013 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 23:55:03 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Event on Best Bits Calendar: RightsCon Silicon Valley (March 3-5th, 2014) Message-ID: Hi Thanks everyone for today's discussion and to Jeremy for the run through on the Best Bits calendar. Here are some more details on RightsCon Silicon Valley 2014: www.rightscon.org The event will take on March 3-5 in San Francisco about 6-8 weeks before the Rio summit (assuming it takes place and is in April/May). Chatting to a few people today, it could be a good place to help strategize position and approach for Rio, and bring together members of the BB network ahead of time. The event will bring together global activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government officials to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection of human rights and the internet. We have about 650 people who have already registered interest in attending (you can do so here ). Located by Silicon Valley, it has a particular focus on technology companies and aims to create a space for multistakeholder and business-to-business dialogue on human rights best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. This year is the first time we will open up the programing to attendees, and as we enter into a participatory agenda building process, you can submit a session proposal here. I will add more information to the Best Bits calendaras we progress - but for now please save the date. See you all tomorrow for Day 0! Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A* RightsCon Silicon Valley, March 3-5, 2014. Register interest no * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Oct 29 06:31:44 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:31:44 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits server restored and under testing Message-ID: <526F8E90.8060503@ciroap.org> Dear all, The Best Bits server is now mostly restored and under testing. Please revert to using this mailing list, and let me know if you experience any unusual problems. 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 | 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 24 19:24:43 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:24:43 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Hosting company: Best Bits website deleted Message-ID: I just received this message from the hosting company for Best Bits: > We are sorry to inform you that the hostnode where your VPS is hosted suffered a major RAID card controller failure, which, unfortunately, was so catastrophic as to render all data on the array as unrecoverable. > > Our engineers have been working today to recover the data from the failed array however we could not recover any sane data held on the array. > > We are really sorry for this loss and are currently building new VPS on a new server with a new RAID 10 disk array. If you have backup of your VPS data then, get in touch and we’ll help you to re-build your VPs. > > As a side note, we have sent the disks off to a specialist data recovery company, however it’s best in the short term to get new VPSs built and brought online. We have no ETA on this as yet or whether any data can be recovered. This means that the Best Bits website and mailing lists are unavailable until further notice. I am sending this message not only to the governance list but to the last backup of the Best Bits list that I have, however I know for sure that some people have joined since then. I have been making backups, but it will take some time to restore (perhaps measured in days), and there may still be some amount of information loss. I apologise for this disaster, which could not possibly have come at a worse time. -- 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: -------------- 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: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 24 11:22:51 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:22:51 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52693B4B.8080105@cafonso.ca> Monkeys bite me! I do not wish the technical community taking over. The vision of a Skynet is terrifying! --c.a. On 10/23/2013 02:53 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the > "technical" community. > Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs > earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. > > McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it > say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really > means "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. > Furthermore, I do not think I have any track record for celebrating > governments, but I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may > be evil, but it was also a world led by governments which gave us the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related texts, which have > served as formidable normative tools for social progress. And sometimes, > some of them put a stake into seeing those norms upheld. > > Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best > interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me > since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that > designers could do a better job in making the technology more > HR-friendly, so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful > things --there's no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot > write a clean and accurate user guide for... users! It is my sense that > they are mostly impressed with impressing their peers, as is often the > case with minority groups of meritocrats. So yes, seeing > "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from > "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of concern > to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. > > I'm just saying -- "on equal footing" my dear! > > Mawaki > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, McTim > wrote: > > Jeremy, > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community > meeting that > > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an > astonishing > > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that > will create a > > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of > reasserting the > > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > > models. > > CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it > gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Oct 8 04:20:23 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 04:20:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] I* Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation Message-ID: <5253C047.4060004@cis-india.org> What do folks make of this statement? Key terms: Internet fragmentation; undermining of trust & confidence; evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation; globalization of ICANN & IANA functions; "all stakeholders, including all governments, on an equal footing"; IPv6. ~ Pranesh ==== http://goo.gl/uZSnuq Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation Montevideo, Uruguay 7 October 2013 - The leaders of organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet technical infrastructure globally have met in Montevideo, Uruguay, to consider current issues affecting the future of the Internet. The Internet and World Wide Web have brought major benefits in social and economic development worldwide. Both have been built and governed in the public interest through unique mechanisms for global multistakeholder Internet cooperation, which have been intrinsic to their success. The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet. In this sense: They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. They also called for the transition to IPv6 to remain a top priority globally. In particular Internet content providers must serve content with both IPv4 and IPv6 services, in order to be fully reachable on the global Internet. Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO African Network Information Center (AFRINIC) Paul Wilson, Director General Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) John Curran, CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Russ Housley, Chair Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Fadi Chehadé, President and CEO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN Jari Arkko, Chair Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Lynn St Amour, President and CEO Internet Society (ISOC) Raúl Echeberría, CEO Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC) Axel Pawlik, Managing Director Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) Jeff Jaffe, CEO World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) -- 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: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 24 11:28:58 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:28:58 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <52693CBA.5060704@cafonso.ca> "Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these "relationships". --c.a. On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to. > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > Bill > >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. > > > > ********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > > From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Oct 29 07:14:54 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:14:54 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all Message-ID: Dear people, Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further consideration. Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation. As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps: - We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is back up. My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this coalition/dialogue in a closed list? All the best, Joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: coalition:dialogue_meeting.doc Type: application/msword Size: 21504 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 29 05:08:05 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:08:05 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Is IGF becoming traditional diplomatic meeting? In-Reply-To: References: <6310290E-11EE-4A52-BE46-B0EB80554FF2@apnic.net> Message-ID: <725906FF-39AB-4886-91D0-F0FCA6FFF554@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Joana, It was a good session, enjoyed your comments A surprise so little participation from civil society. We make noise, but not when it counts. Adam On Oct 24, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Yep, I'll be speaking in that session tomorrow. Its a 3 hour session with US gov, Brazilian Embassador and probably Google. Among other things, I'm gonna highlight the importance of adopting the principles developed at necessary and proportionate. > > If you want me to be a channel to express of any concern/suggestion, please, let me know. > > ;) > > On Oct 24, 2013 2:28 PM, "Paul Wilson" wrote: > I guess most people know, there will be a session on surveillance as an emerging issue, tomorrow at 9.30am in Hall 1. > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1344-taking-stock--emerging-issues--internet-surveillance > > > > > On 24/10/2013, at 2:21 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I am really amazed how we are facing these case of massive surveillance right now and all stakeholders in the IGF, including civil society, are being so diplomatic to talk about it. I am sitting in a panel about cybersecurity with a US gov representative and Google and no Civil society on the panel (just governments and industry). There is almost no civil society organizations present in room. Is this out of our radar? For our friends in the list who are CS from the US: wouldn't that be a good opportunity to confront your government publicly? > > > > M > > > > -- > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Oct 28 03:29:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:29:23 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants In-Reply-To: <52647B6E.1050504@cis-india.org> References: <525E6AD2.4030608@ciroap.org> <24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org> <8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org> <20131017091705.2f291cac@swan.bollow.ch> <0C925836-6954-4A57-B292-6B46D9180B13@acm.org> <000d01cecbeb$0a247e80$1e6d7b80$@gmail.com> <52647B6E.1050504@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <003101ced3af$7691b080$63b51180$@gmail.com> interesting question Pranesh and sorry that it got lost in the Bali stuff... I don't have an intimate knowledge of ICANN at all so I can't respond directly but my feeling is that it is not possible to talk about an institution or organization as being "Multi-stakeholder" in the way one can discuss whether processes, decision making, consultations etc. can be understood as MS or not MS. Certainly, many institutions will have multiple stakeholders involved but the very fact of it being an institution or organization means that the structure of the organization including the relationships between its elements (including its stakeholders) is fundamentally determined by the structure of the institution itself--its charter, its governance structure, its internal organigram that sort of thing. This would I think fundamentally exclude it from he kind of shared determinations/shared power that most involved in this discussion would attribute to MSism. As for ICANN, my feeling based on the above is that it is an INGO with a particular set of consultation mechanisms and internal decision making procedures inclusive of multiple parties organized as stakeholder groups. M -----Original Message----- From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 8:55 AM To: michael gurstein; 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants Dear Michael, Given the processes followed by ICANN, would you say it is "PD" or "MS"? It seems to me that it has a few features from both those lists below. Regards, Pranesh michael gurstein [2013-10-18 18:14]: > Hmmm... Interesting... > > I've been following these and associated discussions for some time now > and this is the first time that I've ever seen the association that > you are making below, Avri, between MSism and Participatory Democracy > in fact when the subject has been discussed at all, my sense was that > most MS advocates treated democracy in whatever manifestation with some contempt. > > Based on my reading the way in which MSism is usually used in these > discussions would I think be diametrically differerent from how I > understand PD. > > PD MSism > structured/rule governed decision processes no firm > determination/rules of decision processes > structured/rule governed processes for inclusion no defined > (agreed upon) processes/rules for inclusion > equality as between participants equality as > between stakeholders groups > equality as between participants no > determination of relative status of participants within stakeholder groups > general acceptance of democratic governance framework MSism seen as > alternative form of governance to democracy > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:15 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting > participants > > hi, > > I would rather put it that: a form that does not incorporate > principles of participatory democracy is not multistakeholder. > > Your question is a bit loaded by using the word 'deserve'. I am not > making an axiological judgement or speaking of merit. > > In my work on multistakeholder models and definitions, I have become > convinced that if it isn't attempting to foster greater participatory > democratic participation, leaving aside the degree to which it may or > may not be succeeding at any particular moment or according to any > single judge, it isn't a multistakeholder model. > > For me, participatory democracy that incorporates other forms of > democracy including representative democracy where appropriate, is the > holy grail that many efforts that have come to be called > multistakeholder are trying to achieve. Certainly I would not define > as multistakeholder any effort for which this wasn't a fundamental goal. > > This is part of my love/hate relationship with ICANN. Sometimes I am > sure that this is exactly what we are about - though only succeeding partially. > And at other times, I think we forget that this is our fundamental > mission until someone points out that we have lost our way and we > correct our course. > > avri > > > > On 17 Oct 2013, at 00:17, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Hi Avri >> >> Do in your view all forms of multistakeholderism deserve to be >> considered a "a form" of democracy? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think that one reason the form of participatory democracy we are >>> calling multistakeholderism (MSism) is not uniform in that there are >>> many ways in which it can be expressed. >>> >>> I do not think we will find a single definition. And even if we >>> could, even if there was just one modality for MSism, just one way >>> to implement the multistakeholder model ,it would be something that >>> is still in development and discovery. >>> >>> But I do not beleive there is a single way to implement a >>> multistakeholder model, and I don't beleive any existing >>> organization has the perfect exemplar - though there may be one I >>> don't know of either in Internet governance or some other field and >>> though several of those still in the crucible of real life >>> deployment attempting real world management and regulatory functions >>> do show promise, in my opinion. >>> >>> It is a relatively new trend in world history and in the development >>> of democracy - less that few score years at the most. It is a form >>> that I beleive is built upon the modern world's ability to >>> communicate across cultures and to travel freely across borders. >>> >>> I think as we gain more experience and do more study on the variety >>> of multistakeholder models we will discover characteristics that all >>> forms of the model must have. >>> >>> I think the points you make below are all part of the framework for >>> any definition. And I think there is value in trying to scope out >>> the framework, starting with the things that no governance system >>> that wants to call itself multistakeholder can do without. >>> >>> I think your list of questions is the start of a good question set. >>> >>> I also think that BestBits spending time on this is a good idea, as >>> long as it does not try to define one form, or as long as it does >>> not create a strawman that allows people to discount the ongoing >>> real life efforts to develop participatory democracy in governance. >>> If we develop a system purely for the reason of furthering people's >>> attacks on the existing efforts at the multistakeholder model, I >>> think it will be counterproductive, at best. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> Note: I would make the point that it is even harder to define civil >>> society than it is to define MSism. but given that I self identify >>> as a member of both civil society and the technical community, I >>> strongly agree about the commonality of many goals. >>> >>> >>> On 16 Oct 2013, at 09:25, John Curran wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day >>>>> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet >>>>> policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly >>>>> for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass >>>>> government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation >>>>> of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes >>>>> underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, >>>>> plus more >>>> >>>> I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" >>>> (presumably with respect to matters of Internet >>>> coordination/governance) >>>> >>>> As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that >>>> everyone is using the term in the same manner, and documenting the >>>> meaning of the term with some clarity might be very helpful in the >>>> coming days (particularly if it were to be defined from the civil >>>> society perspective) >>>> >>>> In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require: >>>> >>>> - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or >>>> common purpose? >>>> >>>> - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all >>>> interested parties? >>>> >>>> - Documents and materials made freely available online to all >>>> parties? >>>> >>>> - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide >>>> consideration of all inputs/views? >>>> >>>> - Respect for all participants involved? >>>> >>>> If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term >>>> "multi-stakeholder" (in matters of Internet >>>> coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term >>>> does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more >>>> solid set of principles regarding its use. If this suggestion is >>>> not aligned with your present plans or goals for the meeting, feel >>>> free to discard it as desired. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> /John >>>> >>>> Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via >>>> multi-stakeholder processes (unless one credits various portions of >>>> my consciousness with independent stakeholder status... ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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 From anriette at apc.org Thu Oct 24 10:59:26 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:59:26 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC Party @ 2013 Internet Governance Forum - Friday 25 October In-Reply-To: <5266077E.7000108@apc.org> References: <5266077E.7000108@apc.org> Message-ID: <526935CE.1030907@apc.org> Apologies if this is a repeat. Anriette Dear all, The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) invites you to our annual Internet Governance Forum party. Date: Friday 25 October, 2013 Time: 18:30 Location: Kendi Kunning Restaurant (a short 5 minute cab ride from the convention center) Please be sure to RSVP to Alex (alexandra at apc.org) and Analia (analia at apc.org) by Thursday 24 October, 2013. Looking forward to seeing you there, The APC team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 29 08:10:23 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:10:23 +0900 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Joana, Thanks for the notes. I was in Bali but not able to attend any of the meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans. And have been quite surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report on this one session is great to see. So a general request: could we please improve communication. Mainly I mean reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if people are attending as civil society, speaking in some way for civil society, then please at least report back to the rest. On the issues of closed lists, etc. Civil society coordination shouldn't be filtering through steering committees and others, we got through WSIS without an executive, the IGF came from civil society through our open processes. This summit and whatever follows shouldn't be more different. Please do not take this as lack of gratitude for the information received, meetings organized and held, etc, etc. Second note more on substance later. Thanks, Adam On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear people, > > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further consideration. > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation. > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps: > > • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is back up. > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this coalition/dialogue in a closed list? > 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 genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 08:14:36 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:14:36 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all Message-ID: Excellent approach,  thanks.  -------- Original message -------- From: Joana Varon Date: To: "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all Dear people,  Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further consideration.  Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation.  As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps: We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is back up. My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know.  Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this coalition/dialogue in a closed list? All the best,  Joana  -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 29 08:16:33 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:16:33 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66B83A01-37A8-40FC-A531-8FBB809BD446@glocom.ac.jp> Could someone please provide a summary of discussions in Bali about the Brazil/ICANN Summit proposal. Joana, thanks for your notes, some questions I've been meaning to ask are also in your report. From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Oct 29 08:20:29 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:20:29 +0800 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi Adam, Just a note to clarify: the goal for having a list closed just to civil society in its wider definition is not to "filter coordination of civil society through steering committees", quite the contrary: it is to be able to strategize in a more organized strategic manner among the general community. I believe that this particular issue has positively address during the bestbits meeting, where there was some general agreement that we could use a closed list for sensitive issues. But if anyone feels it is ok to strategize about how to engage in a coalition/dialogue with technical and business community having companies on the thread or to strategize how to engage with the brazilian government for the summit having other governments on the list. Please, do not hesitate to raise your point. best joana On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Joana, > > Thanks for the notes. I was in Bali but not able to attend any of the > meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans. And have been quite > surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report on this one > session is great to see. > > So a general request: could we please improve communication. Mainly I mean > reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if people are attending > as civil society, speaking in some way for civil society, then please at > least report back to the rest. > > On the issues of closed lists, etc. Civil society coordination shouldn't > be filtering through steering committees and others, we got through WSIS > without an executive, the IGF came from civil society through our open > processes. This summit and whatever follows shouldn't be more different. > Please do not take this as lack of gratitude for the information received, > meetings organized and held, etc, etc. > > Second note more on substance later. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Dear people, > > > > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about > the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that > happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and > Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further > consideration. > > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in > debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have > been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting > and the one with the Brazilian delegation. > > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi > et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and > will be important for the next reports and steps: > > > > • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance > between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example > reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or > offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns > relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those > procedures once the server is back up. > > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns > raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will > use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, > meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly > government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out > will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of > besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the > work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both > the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any > one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. > > > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this > coalition/dialogue in a closed list? > > 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: From nashton at consensus.pro Tue Oct 29 08:24:03 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:09:03 +0545 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: For what it is worth, I hope that all the communities will discuss things in the open. After all, given we are all in favour of transparency, it seems to me we should all practice what we preach. On 29 Oct 2013, at 18:05, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Just a note to clarify: the goal for having a list closed just to civil society in its wider definition is not to "filter coordination of civil society through steering committees", quite the contrary: it is to be able to strategize in a more organized strategic manner among the general community. > > I believe that this particular issue has positively address during the bestbits meeting, where there was some general agreement that we could use a closed list for sensitive issues. But if anyone feels it is ok to strategize about how to engage in a coalition/dialogue with technical and business community having companies on the thread or to strategize how to engage with the brazilian government for the summit having other governments on the list. Please, do not hesitate to raise your point. > > best > > joana > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Joana, > > Thanks for the notes. I was in Bali but not able to attend any of the meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans. And have been quite surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report on this one session is great to see. > > So a general request: could we please improve communication. Mainly I mean reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if people are attending as civil society, speaking in some way for civil society, then please at least report back to the rest. > > On the issues of closed lists, etc. Civil society coordination shouldn't be filtering through steering committees and others, we got through WSIS without an executive, the IGF came from civil society through our open processes. This summit and whatever follows shouldn't be more different. Please do not take this as lack of gratitude for the information received, meetings organized and held, etc, etc. > > Second note more on substance later. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Dear people, > > > > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further consideration. > > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation. > > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps: > > > > • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is back up. > > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. > > > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this coalition/dialogue in a closed list? > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Oct 8 04:37:23 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:37:23 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <5253C443.9000708@apc.org> Very good question Pranesh. At the time when the original principles were finalised (2011) there were actually several developing countries present as observers, including Brazil and South Africa, to mention a few. I doubt very much they would have disagreed substantially with any of these in their final form, but there were some concerns expressed by civil society at that time that some of developing countries present shared. These were in the following headings: > 6. Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; (self-regulation to enforce IP protection) > 11. Promote creativity and innovation; (also around IP issues) But by and large they thought the principles were fine. South Africa liked them, but would not endorse them because they were not part of the drafting. Anriette > > Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: > apart from process related issues of lack of representation of > developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a > statement of principles that had developing world participation look > different? > > Which of the following policymaking principles would not find place if > the same exercise had been undertaken by a more globally representative > grouping, and what policymaking principles would potentially have been > added? > > 1. Promote and protect the global free flow of information; > 2. Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet; > 3. Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services; > 4. Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; > 5. Encourage multi-stakeholder co-operation in policy development processes; > 6. Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; > 7. Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into > the policy-making process; > 8. Ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability; > 9. Strengthen consistency and effectiveness in privacy protection at a > global level; > 10. Maximise individual empowerment; > 11. Promote creativity and innovation; > 12. Limit Internet intermediary liability; > 13. Encourage co-operation to promote Internet security; > 14. Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. > > Cheers, > Pranesh > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 08:43:21 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:43:21 -0400 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all Message-ID: Just to clarify,  we can and will discuss all issues openly,  or as openly as we always have. Bestbits agreed to continue as an opt-in civil society group focused on driving policy discussion,  and the strategy development for that is limited to those who opt in from civil society.   -------- Original message -------- From: Nick Ashton-Hart Date: To: Joana Varon Cc: Adam Peake ,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," Subject: Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all For what it is worth, I hope that all the communities will discuss things in the open. After all, given we are all in favour of transparency, it seems to me we should all practice what we preach. On 29 Oct 2013, at 18:05, Joana Varon wrote: Hi Adam,  Just a note to clarify: the goal for having a list closed just to civil society in its wider definition is not to "filter coordination of civil society through steering committees", quite the contrary: it is to be able to strategize in a more organized strategic manner among the general community.  I believe that this particular issue has positively address during the bestbits meeting, where there was some general agreement that we could use a closed list for sensitive issues. But if anyone feels it is ok to strategize about how to engage in a coalition/dialogue with technical and business community having companies on the thread or to strategize how to engage with the brazilian government for the summit having other governments on the list. Please, do not hesitate to raise your point.  best joana  On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Peake wrote: Hi Joana, Thanks for the notes.  I was in Bali but not able to attend any of the meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans.  And have been quite surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report on this one session is great to see. So a general request: could we please improve communication. Mainly I mean reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if people are attending as civil society, speaking in some way for civil society, then please at least report back to the rest. On the issues of closed lists, etc.  Civil society coordination shouldn't be filtering through steering committees and others, we got through WSIS without an executive, the IGF came from civil society through our open processes.  This summit and whatever follows shouldn't be more different.  Please do not take this as lack of gratitude for the information received, meetings organized and held, etc, etc. Second note more on substance later. Thanks, Adam On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear people, > > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further consideration. > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation. > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps: > >       • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is back up. > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this coalition/dialogue in a closed list? > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Oct 29 08:44:33 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:44:33 +0700 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Just to clarify once again (and I'll be happy to clarify as much as it is needed): 1) We are now in need to debate our strategy to engage in the Brazilian Summit and in the coalition/dialogue proposed by Fadi et all. 2) Companies and Governments are on this list 3) At the bestbits meeting, pre-IGF, there was broad support to have a more limited list, without private sector and government, for the purpose of developing strategies. Perhaps this will become clearer once the BB report on the session about BB structure/working process is available. Sorry for any confusion or misunderstanding. best joana On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > For what it is worth, I hope that all the communities will discuss things > in the open. After all, given we are all in favour of transparency, it > seems to me we should all practice what we preach. > > On 29 Oct 2013, at 18:05, Joana Varon wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > Just a note to clarify: the goal for having a list closed just to civil > society in its wider definition is not to "filter coordination of civil > society through steering committees", quite the contrary: it is to be able > to strategize in a more organized strategic manner among the general > community. > > I believe that this particular issue has positively address during the > bestbits meeting, where there was some general agreement that we could use > a closed list for sensitive issues. But if anyone feels it is ok to > strategize about how to engage in a coalition/dialogue with technical and > business community having companies on the thread or to strategize how to > engage with the brazilian government for the summit having other > governments on the list. Please, do not hesitate to raise your point. > > best > > joana > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Hi Joana, >> >> Thanks for the notes. I was in Bali but not able to attend any of the >> meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans. And have been quite >> surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report on this one >> session is great to see. >> >> So a general request: could we please improve communication. Mainly I >> mean reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if people are >> attending as civil society, speaking in some way for civil society, then >> please at least report back to the rest. >> >> On the issues of closed lists, etc. Civil society coordination shouldn't >> be filtering through steering committees and others, we got through WSIS >> without an executive, the IGF came from civil society through our open >> processes. This summit and whatever follows shouldn't be more different. >> Please do not take this as lack of gratitude for the information received, >> meetings organized and held, etc, etc. >> >> Second note more on substance later. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> > Dear people, >> > >> > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about >> the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that >> happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and >> Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further >> consideration. >> > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in >> debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have >> been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting >> and the one with the Brazilian delegation. >> > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with >> Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable >> and will be important for the next reports and steps: >> > >> > • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right >> balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example >> reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or >> offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns >> relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those >> procedures once the server is back up. >> > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns >> raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will >> use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, >> meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly >> government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out >> will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of >> besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the >> work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both >> the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any >> one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. >> > >> > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this >> coalition/dialogue in a closed list? >> > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 29 08:46:09 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:46:09 +0900 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> Thanks Joana, Perhaps it will be more difficult to strategize on an open list, or it might feel more difficult. Reality is everything any reasonably large group discusses will leak. Likely the only people excluded from the conversation will be other civil society, and at a time when this very small collection of CS should be looking to outreach. We survived WSIS and a few years of IGF with open lists I couldn't attend bestbits, no idea what was discussed there. > "filter coordination of civil society through steering committees" Apologies, this must seem like unfair criticism. I do not know how bestbits works, just read your comment about debates with bestbits steering committee and about trying to decide how to report. Frustrating not to be able to attend any of the Bali civil society meetings, been hoping for reports since and there's been nothing, until you wrote, from any of any (I've seen.) Thanks, Adam On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Just a note to clarify: the goal for having a list closed just to civil society in its wider definition is not to "filter coordination of civil society through steering committees", quite the contrary: it is to be able to strategize in a more organized strategic manner among the general community. > > I believe that this particular issue has positively address during the bestbits meeting, where there was some general agreement that we could use a closed list for sensitive issues. But if anyone feels it is ok to strategize about how to engage in a coalition/dialogue with technical and business community having companies on the thread or to strategize how to engage with the brazilian government for the summit having other governments on the list. Please, do not hesitate to raise your point. > > best > > joana > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Joana, > > Thanks for the notes. I was in Bali but not able to attend any of the meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans. And have been quite surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report on this one session is great to see. > > So a general request: could we please improve communication. Mainly I mean reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if people are attending as civil society, speaking in some way for civil society, then please at least report back to the rest. > > On the issues of closed lists, etc. Civil society coordination shouldn't be filtering through steering committees and others, we got through WSIS without an executive, the IGF came from civil society through our open processes. This summit and whatever follows shouldn't be more different. Please do not take this as lack of gratitude for the information received, meetings organized and held, etc, etc. > > Second note more on substance later. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Dear people, > > > > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further consideration. > > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation. > > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps: > > > > • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is back up. > > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. > > > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this coalition/dialogue in a closed list? > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Oct 29 09:44:15 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:44:15 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits server restored and under testing In-Reply-To: <526F8E90.8060503@ciroap.org> References: <526F8E90.8060503@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <526FBBAF.8040404@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Congrats Jeremy. I was so busy at the IGF that I only half-grasped what was happening. You must have felt really frustrated at the timing of this. You have my sympathy. When APC was hit by a DDOS attack a few weeks ago we were down for about a week.. mail and web and everything else! It was incredibly stressful. Anriette On 29/10/2013 12:31, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > The Best Bits server is now mostly restored and under testing. Please revert to using this mailing list, and let me know if you experience any unusual problems. > > 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 | 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. > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ 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/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSb7uuAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewfAkH/3xFDwkvalJuM1WtSicmYvd8 F7EbnfDtp3qb05J5LO3r6PfHjjW1xPbAV/c4+nGhSFNX4Av0S+p4Xfaa3z0LT6Y1 o3Bag5ZiUQR3qRd6TW3d/iz4450Wu/bBOR8oDQaKDz2Xbb6gNiB6arL43lhxhlv8 7yG1TCpKZDmYPVJftatGsZ4lZ3kXob7II8ypck25IfeKuf269CEQvetuqjOfdDsg xuxo/qC2O6wZZhW4m6yH+JkQw+xsNb0JoanoMVdVSLDbR7J+NJUj2JUqWFJPyqOp PB36QMGyXy/mR0I/ovwnuInAV+tKubPrgTNEoPyrwNYF3hzhPP4/ujuTFE/WirU= =Jo/C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Oct 29 09:51:45 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:51:45 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits server restored and under testing In-Reply-To: <526FBBAF.8040404@apc.org> References: <526F8E90.8060503@ciroap.org> <526FBBAF.8040404@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone Hope you are all recovering from Bali. You might remember that on a couple of occasions Fadi mentioned he has commissioned a panel headed by Beth Noveck to help him think through new ways of engaging people and making multi-stakeholder governance more inclusive and transparent. The panel is based in GovLab, a unit at the Wagner School for Public Policy in NYU. Other panel members are Alison Gillwald, Joi Ito, Karim Lakhani, Guo Liang, Geof Mulgan and Bitange Ndemo. The focus of the panel is on advising ICANN how it can best manage the domain name space, but Fadi has said he sees this as a way of finding better ways of involving people in decision making processes more generally. They plan to launch an online platform to gather input and ideas from a global audience, focused on innovations in governance (with a live training workshop during the ICANN 48 Meeting in Buenos Aires November 17-21) – this engagement platform will be launched on Nov 17. The panel is be looking at three areas: · Mapping the technologies and platforms that exist for identifying know-how and enabling participatory decision-making across stakeholders. · Identifying the best models for leveraging collective intelligence, open innovation and open data around the world (– that could be applied to the ICANN processes.) · What to consider when designing innovative ways to manage and coordinate – using new technologies. I think it is one of the more serious attempts to think through what multi-stakeholder governance might look like given the technology platforms we have. So I’d suggest we all look out for the engagement platform on the 17th and feed in our ideas. Some background links here will give more detail: Details of the Panel's call : http://thegovlab.org/envisioning-a-21st-century-organization-to-coordinate-the-internet-addressing-system-a-shared-global-public-resource/ Some Primers: http://thegovlab.org/new-publications-primers-on-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-numbers-icann/ GovLab living labs: http://thegovlab.org/the-govlab-living-labs-experiments-in-smarter-governance/ 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 27 22:48:59 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:48:59 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <7970CCB8-EFB7-4375-A8F9-CFAE54225D90@bolobhi.org> References: <7970CCB8-EFB7-4375-A8F9-CFAE54225D90@bolobhi.org> Message-ID: <009c01ced388$49ed8940$ddc89bc0$@gmail.com> Jeremy, I'm wondering how the chapeau for the statement was created and introduced where there is a full-throated endorsement of (let's call it "pig in a poke") MSism i.e. a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. There is no indication in the initial statement of principles of such an uncritical endorsement. (I have somewhat parallel reservations about the IGF as well--at least as mentioned in the below--but these are less pressing in the current context of an IGF without the capabilities being pointed to.) For reasons I've expressed in my blog and elsewhere I find this uncritical/undefined kind of endorsement by CS of MSism extremely problematic and for that reason I can't endorse the statement. Although I agree that all stakeholders should have a role, I think that there is the issue of a role for those who might not currently be defined (or define themselves) as "stakeholders" (as per Daniel Pimenta's note) and as well the issue of possible subversion or capture of the MS process unless suitable measures are identified and implemented. I have no doubt that Brazil with its successful experience with CGI and elsewhere in integrating MS processes into on-going processes of democratic governance, participation and decision making, will be able to avoid these. However, I'm rather less sure of other of the stakeholder groups likely to be involved in the lead up to Brazil and following. M From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Sana Saleem Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 11:17 PM To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: Valeria Betancourt; Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil Hi all, Bolo Bhi, Pakistan endorses this statement. Best, Sana On 27-Oct-2013, at 9:18 pm, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Global Partners Digital endorses the statement Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at g p-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk From: Valeria Betancourt Date: Sunday, 27 October 2013 02:05 To: Anja Kovacs Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma , "bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org" , Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil Hi all, The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) also endorses the statement. Valeria On 24/10/2013, at 22:12, Anja Kovacs wrote: The Internet Democracy Project, India, also endorses the statement. Think there might be a few spelling and grammar mistakes in the intro para? Shouldn't it say "poseS a challenge FOR the whole community to tackle"? Thanks, Anja On Oct 25, 2013 10:25 AM, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: Jeremy, I will give you a hug when I see you. This is the kind of thing that turns a human being into a zoombie. Norbert, kindly note that The World Wide Web Foundation has given an okay to the statement. Best Nnenna On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > For those who had not heard from my message to the governance list, > the Best Bits server has been completely lost due to a VPS > malfunction. This means that our website and mailing lists are > offline until further notice. The statement text that has emerged from our discussions is now online as a sign-on statement at http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html Greetings, Norbert ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 29 10:29:17 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:29:17 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131029152917.116cdb0f@quill> Joana Varon wrote: > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns > raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society > will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by > exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not > strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that > might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account > the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to > coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a > strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our > engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major > opposition to it, please, let us know. > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this > coalition/dialogue in a closed list? Could someone please clarify whether this is seen as an activity of BestBits or of civil society as a whole? Is there an implied claim of BestBits somehow representing all of civil society in Internet governance? Greetings, Norbert From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 10:54:21 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:54:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all Message-ID: This only applies to those from civil society who decide to opt in on the bestbits platform to a particular action,  statement, or whatever  -------- Original message -------- From: Norbert Bollow Date: To: Joana Varon Cc: "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," Subject: Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all Joana Varon wrote: > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns > raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society > will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by > exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not > strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that > might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account > the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to > coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a > strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our > engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major > opposition to it, please, let us know. > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this > coalition/dialogue in a closed list? Could someone please clarify whether this is seen as an activity of BestBits or of civil society as a whole? Is there an implied claim of BestBits somehow representing all of civil society in Internet governance? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 29 11:22:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:22:39 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131029162239.6e4487cc@quill> So it would be seen as appropriate for other civil society networks including IGC (where I have a co-coordinator role) to set up their own strategy development processes and corresponding interface with the four appointed civil society liaisons? Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:54:21 -0400 schrieb "genekimmelman at gmail.com" : > This only applies to those from civil society who decide to opt in on > the bestbits platform to a particular action,  statement, or whatever  > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Norbert Bollow > Date: > To: Joana Varon > Cc: "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [Meeting > Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all > Joana Varon wrote: > > > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns > > raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society > > will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by > > exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not > > strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems > > that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into > > account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way > > forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months > > in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our > > engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major > > opposition to it, please, let us know. > > > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this > > coalition/dialogue in a closed list? > > Could someone please clarify whether this is seen as an activity of > BestBits or of civil society as a whole? Is there an implied claim of > BestBits somehow representing all of civil society in Internet > governance? > > Greetings, > Norbert From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Oct 29 12:40:40 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:40:40 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Tue Oct 8 06:17:08 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:17:08 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance: not just a US issue In-Reply-To: <52535F24.50804@cis-india.org> References: <52535F24.50804@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Thanks Pranesh - these are fascinating pieces. I have been wondering for awhile if there is a widespread pattern of govts using hotly contested license negotiations or spectrum auctions to secure access to data. It only makes sense that they would try, I guess. Does anyone have similar intelligence from other countries? best Anne On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > A two-part piece I wrote in the NYT India blog on surveillance in India. > > Part 1: How Surveillance Works in India > http://goo.gl/ahjDy4 > > Part 2: Can India Trust Its Government on Privacy? > http://goo.gl/ih4PLW > > ~ Pranesh > > Anne Jellema [2013-10-04 09:21]: > > Hi all > > > > Yet more evidence (this time from South Africa) that governments beyond > the > > US are using technology to escalate surveillance of civilians, and for > > their own dubious reasons as well as to cooperate with the Americans. > > > > Full disclosure: the author is my partner. > > > > Cheers > > > > Anne > > > > > http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2013/10/04/surveillance-may-turn-many-of-us-into-enemies > > Surveillance may turn many of us into ‘enemies’ > > BY ANTHONY BUTLER< > http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/staffprofiles/2012/08/10/anthony-butler-profile > >, > > 04 OCTOBER 2013, 05:51 > > > > SOUTH Africa’s intelligence operatives often appear hopelessly inept. But > > new technologies are empowering even the most incompetent spooks. > > Revelations by the WikiLeaks "Spy Files" project and whistle-blower > Edward > > Snowden point to a large escalation in citizen surveillance. > > > > In South Africa, crime intelligence and private investigators routinely > > circumvent the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act to access > > individual citizens’ e-mails and phone calls. Targets can simply be added > > to legitimate surveillance projects. Even more concerning is the > likelihood > > that there is already systematic blanket surveillance by the state. > > > > The Citizen Lab at Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs recently > > revealed that FinSpy software is hosted by one or more South African > > computers, almost certainly within the government. FinSpy inserts > "trojans" > > onto target computers and cellphones, allowing remote surveillance of > > keystrokes, passwords, text messages, e-mails and voice data. It can even > > turn a cellphone into a microphone to eavesdrop on private conversations > > (which explains some politicians’ unnerving habit of removing the > batteries > > from their phones). > > > > Huawei Technologies, the world’s second-biggest telecommunications > company, > > is a recent investor in South Africa. According to one assessment in > > Foreign Affairs magazine, Huawei is a Chinese intelligence agency > > "masquerading as a tech business". Using software developed for domestic > > repression, it could allegedly supply passive surveillance capability to > a > > friendly ruling party. > > > > A much smaller local company, VASTech, has been a focus of WikiLeaks’ > > attention. The Wall Street Journal revealed in 2011 that the > > Stellenbosch-based firm’s systems helped the Gadaffi regime monitor > > millions of mobile and landline calls. This technology was also > reportedly > > sold to the Mubarak state. > > > > WikiLeaks-hosted company documents show that VASTech’s Zebra system can > > monitor 20-million voice channels simultaneously. Such blanket > interception > > is complemented by archiving power that allows agents to "backtrack and > > retrieve all the communications of suspects prior to an incident". > Network > > analysis permits the identification of "key relationships between > > stakeholders" and lays bare "the structure and operation of syndicate > > networks". > > > > Even anonymous cellphones are no defence against Zebra: it uses "speaker > > identification" technology to "reveal unknown numbers and new mobile > > devices used by targets". > > > > VASTech describes surveillance targets as "criminals and enemies of the > > public". But it is officials in state agencies, and not software > suppliers, > > who decide how technology is used. Given that the state’s national > > interception centre probably possesses such instruments, can citizens be > > confident that intrastate oversight mechanisms are effective? > > > > Drug-smuggling, xenophobia, illicit commerce, and human trafficking, > among > > many other matters, are routinely touted as "threats to national > security". > > This could license the surveillance of a vast swathe of commercial > entities > > and citizens. > > > > Surveillance systems are excellent instruments for the mapping of > internal > > political party factions. It is possible to take a player in national, > > provincial or local politics, reconstruct his "collaboration networks", > and > > eavesdrop on his archived conversations. There is nothing to prevent such > > technology being used against recalcitrant trade unionists — especially > > when, as State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele has observed, so much > > industrial action is "illegal". > > > > The KwaZulu-Natal police’s Lt-Gen Solomon Makgale made the insightful > > observation this week that service delivery protesters are also > criminals. > > A protest, he noted, "stops being a protest when a crime is committed … > if > > you are impeding the flow of traffic, then obviously you’ll be in > conflict > > with the law". > > > > South Africa is experiencing a rapid expansion in the reach and potential > > power of state surveillance. It is unclear how to prevent what may become > > an equally rapid rise in the number of citizens defined by state agencies > > as "enemies of the public". > > > > • *Butler teaches politics at the University of Cape Town.* > > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 12:53:25 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:53:25 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all Message-ID: <6kkrsugf3l7eeto84wuxqiji.1383065605065@email.android.com> Yes -------- Original message -------- From: Norbert Bollow Date: To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: joana at varonferraz.com,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all So it would be seen as appropriate for other civil society networks including IGC (where I have a co-coordinator role) to set up their own strategy development processes and corresponding interface with the four appointed civil society liaisons? Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:54:21 -0400 schrieb "genekimmelman at gmail.com" : > This only applies to those from civil society who decide to opt in on > the bestbits platform to a particular action,  statement, or whatever  > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Norbert Bollow > Date:  > To: Joana Varon > Cc: "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [Meeting > Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all > Joana Varon wrote: > > > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns > > raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society > > will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by > > exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not > > strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems > > that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into > > account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way > > forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months > > in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our > > engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major > > opposition to it, please, let us know. > > > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this > > coalition/dialogue in a closed list? > > Could someone please clarify whether this is seen as an activity of > BestBits or of civil society as a whole? Is there an implied claim of > BestBits somehow representing all of civil society in Internet > governance? > > Greetings, > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 15:07:59 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:07:59 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! Message-ID: Marco Civil vote was postponed to next week, locking vote on other ordinary issues until them. 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 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 From kichango at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 16:54:47 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:54:47 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits server restored and under testing In-Reply-To: References: <526F8E90.8060503@ciroap.org> <526FBBAF.8040404@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks for pointing this out, Andrew. Would be interesting to keep an eye on, indeed. -mc On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Hi everyone**** > > ** ** > > Hope you are all recovering from Bali.**** > > ** ** > > You might remember that on a couple of occasions Fadi mentioned he has > commissioned a panel headed by Beth Noveck to help him think through new > ways of engaging people and making multi-stakeholder governance more > inclusive and transparent. The panel is based in GovLab, a unit at the > Wagner School for Public Policy in NYU. Other panel members are Alison > Gillwald, Joi Ito, Karim Lakhani, Guo Liang, Geof Mulgan and Bitange Ndemo. > **** > > ** ** > > The focus of the panel is on advising ICANN how it can best manage the > domain name space, but Fadi has said he sees this as a way of finding > better ways of involving people in decision making processes more generally. > **** > > **** > > They plan to launch an online platform to gather input and ideas from a > global audience, focused on innovations in governance (with a live training > workshop during the ICANN 48 Meeting in > Buenos Aires November 17-21) – this engagement platform will be launched > on *Nov 17.* > > ** ** > > The panel is be looking at three areas:**** > > **· **Mapping the technologies and platforms that exist for > identifying know-how and enabling participatory decision-making across > stakeholders.**** > > **· **Identifying the best models for leveraging collective > intelligence, open innovation and open data around the world (– that could > be applied to the ICANN processes.)**** > > **· **What to consider when designing innovative ways to manage > and coordinate – using new technologies.**** > > I think it is one of the more serious attempts to think through what > multi-stakeholder governance might look like given the technology platforms > we have. So I’d suggest we all look out for the engagement platform on the > 17th and feed in our ideas.**** > > ** ** > > Some background links here will give more detail:**** > > ** ** > > Details of the Panel's call : > http://thegovlab.org/envisioning-a-21st-century-organization-to-coordinate-the-internet-addressing-system-a-shared-global-public-resource > /**** > > **** > > Some Primers: > http://thegovlab.org/new-publications-primers-on-the-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-numbers-icann > /**** > > **** > > GovLab living labs: > http://thegovlab.org/the-govlab-living-labs-experiments-in-smarter-governance > /**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 23:44:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:44:54 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <038f01ced522$6e2eac80$4a8c0580$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Joana, it is useful but for me at least it raises more questions than it answers. I think that there is a need for some sort of continuing regular voice communiation where there can be queries and answers as they arise. Does anyone have access to a teleconferencing voice bridge (do we need something like that) and could we start to schedule a regular (once every two weeks?) teleconference. Time zones of course will be a problem but if we rotate the hosting so that everyone gets there chance to be getting up at 3 am : ) perhaps it might work. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:15 PM To: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all Dear people, Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about the meeting of the "coalition/dialogue" (it doesnt has a name yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further consideration. Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation. As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps: * We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is back up. My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this coalition/dialogue in a closed list? All the best, Joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lebrument at open-root.eu Tue Oct 29 19:57:56 2013 From: lebrument at open-root.eu (chantal lebrument) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:57:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! Message-ID: About Net Neutrality, we should read Louis Pouzin's text: http://www.open-root.eu/about-open-root/news/net-neutrality-and-quality-of-service Chantal Lebrument Open-Root lebrument at open-root.eu 2013/10/29 Carolina Rossini > Marco Civil vote was postponed to next week, locking vote on other > ordinary issues until them. > > 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 > > 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: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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: From pouzin at well.com Tue Oct 29 22:04:10 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 03:04:10 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Carolina, Net neutrality (NN) is a sensitive, but fuzzy issue. Here attached is a paper I wrote for the Dyn. Coalition on NN in Bali. Best, Louis. - - - On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Marco Civil vote was postponed to next week, locking vote on other > ordinary issues until them. > > 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 > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Net Neutrality and Quality of Service-en.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 30 01:02:31 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:02:31 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <038f01ced522$6e2eac80$4a8c0580$@gmail.com> References: <038f01ced522$6e2eac80$4a8c0580$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <527092E7.7030600@ciroap.org> On 30/10/13 11:44, michael gurstein wrote: > > Thanks for this Joana, it is useful but for me at least it raises more > questions than it answers. > > > > I think that there is a need for some sort of continuing regular voice > communiation where there can be queries and answers as they arise. > > > > Does anyone have access to a teleconferencing voice bridge (do we need > something like that) and could we start to schedule a regular (once > every two weeks?) teleconference. Time zones of course will be a > problem but if we rotate the hosting so that everyone gets there > chance to be getting up at 3 am : ) perhaps it might work. > Good suggestion provided that it supplements, but does not replace, list discussion. I would like to suggest that we use Mumble, which is a secure group VoIP chat. Instructions are here: http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/secure-communication-tools/ Currently the instructions specify that you should use a server from Robert Guerra of Citizen Lab, but this was for testing purposes. I have had a few successful dry runs now. But ultimately if we are to host regular voice conferences, I will set up our own Best Bits Mumble server. (Disclaimer: the Best Bits website is not fully restored yet. Some functionality, most notably the navigation menu, and the documents uploaded from our Bali meeting, are still under repair.) -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 30 04:39:37 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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). From mshears at cdt.org Wed Oct 30 06:41:53 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:41:53 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Summaries and notes from the BestBits sessions on ITU, WSIS and Cyber Message-ID: <5270E271.1070304@cdt.org> 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 -- 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 alalegre at yahoo.com Wed Oct 30 07:20:54 2013 From: alalegre at yahoo.com (Al Alegre) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:20:54 +0800 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: <2B3142A3-AFD2-4071-B39F-FEBA38D0A402@yahoo.com> Hi all Greetings of solidarity from Manila.. I was note-taker and rapporteur for the ITU breakout group, and i turned over to Joana my (handwritten) notes after the session. Glad to meet you all in Bali Al Alegre via mobile On Oct 30, 2013, at 6:41 PM, 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 > > -- > > 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 09:21:18 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:21:18 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] New paper on surveillance and the digital divide References: <525402F5.6060208@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: <9C281BD2-E30F-49EF-B9D8-5D475CEFA03E@gmail.com> Sorry for cross posting, but this may be of interest in folks on this different lists. Begin forwarded message: > From: Seeta Peña Gangadharan > Date: October 8, 2013 at 10:04:53 AM GMT-3 > > Hey all, > > I recently published my new paper "Joining the surveillance society?" > > Please have a read and share widely! > > http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/joining_the_surveillance_society > > https://twitter.com/OTI/status/387232626928394240 > > Thanks, > Seeta > > - -- > Seeta Peña Gangadharan, PhD > Senior Research Fellow, Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > 1899 L St., NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20036 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Oct 30 15:01:01 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:01:01 -0400 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: This is the main point that we should all agree on - and it was agreed on during the Best Bits meeting: "3) At the bestbits meeting, pre-IGF, there was broad support to have a more limited list, without private sector and government, for the purpose of developing strategies." On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Joana, > > Perhaps it will be more difficult to strategize on an open list, or it > might feel more difficult. Reality is everything any reasonably large > group discusses will leak. Likely the only people excluded from the > conversation will be other civil society, and at a time when this very > small collection of CS should be looking to outreach. > > We survived WSIS and a few years of IGF with open lists > > I couldn't attend bestbits, no idea what was discussed there. > > > "filter coordination of civil society through steering committees" > > Apologies, this must seem like unfair criticism. I do not know how > bestbits works, just read your comment about debates with bestbits steering > committee and about trying to decide how to report. Frustrating not to be > able to attend any of the Bali civil society meetings, been hoping for > reports since and there's been nothing, until you wrote, from any of any > (I've seen.) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Just a note to clarify: the goal for having a list closed just to civil > society in its wider definition is not to "filter coordination of civil > society through steering committees", quite the contrary: it is to be able > to strategize in a more organized strategic manner among the general > community. > > > > I believe that this particular issue has positively address during the > bestbits meeting, where there was some general agreement that we could use > a closed list for sensitive issues. But if anyone feels it is ok to > strategize about how to engage in a coalition/dialogue with technical and > business community having companies on the thread or to strategize how to > engage with the brazilian government for the summit having other > governments on the list. Please, do not hesitate to raise your point. > > > > best > > > > joana > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Joana, > > > > Thanks for the notes. I was in Bali but not able to attend any of the > meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans. And have been quite > surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report on this one > session is great to see. > > > > So a general request: could we please improve communication. Mainly I > mean reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if people are > attending as civil society, speaking in some way for civil society, then > please at least report back to the rest. > > > > On the issues of closed lists, etc. Civil society coordination > shouldn't be filtering through steering committees and others, we got > through WSIS without an executive, the IGF came from civil society through > our open processes. This summit and whatever follows shouldn't be more > different. Please do not take this as lack of gratitude for the > information received, meetings organized and held, etc, etc. > > > > Second note more on substance later. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > > > Dear people, > > > > > > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about > the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that > happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and > Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further > consideration. > > > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in > debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have > been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting > and the one with the Brazilian delegation. > > > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with > Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable > and will be important for the next reports and steps: > > > > > > • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right > balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example > reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or > offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns > relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those > procedures once the server is back up. > > > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns > raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will > use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, > meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly > government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out > will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of > besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the > work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both > the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any > one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. > > > > > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this > coalition/dialogue in a closed list? > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as 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 > -- *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: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 31 00:37:07 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:37:07 +0800 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> On 31/10/13 03:01, Carolina Rossini wrote: > This is the main point that we should all agree on - and it was agreed > on during the Best Bits meeting: > > "3) At the bestbits meeting, pre-IGF, there was broad support to have > a more limited list, without private sector and government, for the > purpose of developing strategies." > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: > > Thanks Joana, > > Perhaps it will be more difficult to strategize on an open list, > or it might feel more difficult. Reality is everything any > reasonably large group discusses will leak. Likely the only > people excluded from the conversation will be other civil society, > and at a time when this very small collection of CS should be > looking to outreach. > > We survived WSIS and a few years of IGF with open lists > As some may remember, we have had a closed list for some time already, but have been able to refrain from using it until now. It's private at lists.bestbits.net and the list webpage at which you can subscribe is here: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/private I also would be happy to work in the open, but I also recognise that others feel differently and that there is some justification for those feelings. Whilst your point is that "discussions will leak anyway", it's also true that people will strategise in closed cc groups anyway, if we don't provide them a closed list. So In order to accommodate them, the use of the private list (and potentially other subject-specific closed lists) exists. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From avri at ella.com Thu Oct 31 00:56:53 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:56:53 -0400 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> Hi, I tend to beleive that anything coming out of a secret list is suspect. It might just be the machinations of the extremists on a list who can never achieve consensus in the clear light of day and who don't know how to work nicely with others. And when civil society starts to doing it is a beginning of the end of a group's usefulness. In practice I, for one, will never be able to accept a secret cabal's marching orders and will never accept the validity of anything that comes out of such a conspiracy. We don't beat them by becoming like them. If we start acting like a police state, which starts with conspiratorial secrecy and intimidation, we are lost as a useful part of the Ig dialogue. Really sorry to see this list already take that turn. avri On 31 Oct 2013, at 00:37, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 31/10/13 03:01, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> This is the main point that we should all agree on - and it was agreed on during the Best Bits meeting: >> >> "3) At the bestbits meeting, pre-IGF, there was broad support to have a more limited list, without private sector and government, for the purpose of developing strategies." >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Thanks Joana, >> >> Perhaps it will be more difficult to strategize on an open list, or it might feel more difficult. Reality is everything any reasonably large group discusses will leak. Likely the only people excluded from the conversation will be other civil society, and at a time when this very small collection of CS should be looking to outreach. >> >> We survived WSIS and a few years of IGF with open lists > > As some may remember, we have had a closed list for some time already, but have been able to refrain from using it until now. It's private at lists.bestbits.net and the list webpage at which you can subscribe is here: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/private > > I also would be happy to work in the open, but I also recognise that others feel differently and that there is some justification for those feelings. > > Whilst your point is that "discussions will leak anyway", it's also true that people will strategise in closed cc groups anyway, if we don't provide them a closed list. > > So In order to accommodate them, the use of the private list (and potentially other subject-specific closed lists) exists. > > -- > 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: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Oct 30 15:08:01 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:08:01 +0100 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52715911.6020102@wzb.eu> I am skeptical about the feasibility of such an approach. There are so many people with various hats on; and, as Adam pointed out, secret strategies won't be secret for a long time. jeanette Am 30.10.2013 20:01, schrieb Carolina Rossini: > This is the main point that we should all agree on - and it was agreed > on during the Best Bits meeting: > > "3) At the bestbits meeting, pre-IGF, there was broad support to have a > more limited list, without private sector and government, for the > purpose of developing strategies." > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: > > Thanks Joana, > > Perhaps it will be more difficult to strategize on an open list, or > it might feel more difficult. Reality is everything any reasonably > large group discusses will leak. Likely the only people excluded > from the conversation will be other civil society, and at a time > when this very small collection of CS should be looking to outreach. > > We survived WSIS and a few years of IGF with open lists > > I couldn't attend bestbits, no idea what was discussed there. > > > "filter coordination of civil society through steering committees" > > Apologies, this must seem like unfair criticism. I do not know how > bestbits works, just read your comment about debates with bestbits > steering committee and about trying to decide how to report. > Frustrating not to be able to attend any of the Bali civil society > meetings, been hoping for reports since and there's been nothing, > until you wrote, from any of any (I've seen.) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Just a note to clarify: the goal for having a list closed just to > civil society in its wider definition is not to "filter coordination > of civil society through steering committees", quite the contrary: > it is to be able to strategize in a more organized strategic manner > among the general community. > > > > I believe that this particular issue has positively address > during the bestbits meeting, where there was some general agreement > that we could use a closed list for sensitive issues. But if anyone > feels it is ok to strategize about how to engage in a > coalition/dialogue with technical and business community having > companies on the thread or to strategize how to engage with the > brazilian government for the summit having other governments on the > list. Please, do not hesitate to raise your point. > > > > best > > > > joana > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Peake > wrote: > > Hi Joana, > > > > Thanks for the notes. I was in Bali but not able to attend any > of the meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans. And have > been quite surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report > on this one session is great to see. > > > > So a general request: could we please improve communication. > Mainly I mean reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if > people are attending as civil society, speaking in some way for > civil society, then please at least report back to the rest. > > > > On the issues of closed lists, etc. Civil society coordination > shouldn't be filtering through steering committees and others, we > got through WSIS without an executive, the IGF came from civil > society through our open processes. This summit and whatever > follows shouldn't be more different. Please do not take this as > lack of gratitude for the information received, meetings organized > and held, etc, etc. > > > > Second note more on substance later. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > > > Dear people, > > > > > > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared > about the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name > yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with > civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free > to add any further consideration. > > > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was > down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others > colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to > report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation. > > > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting > with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more > suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps: > > > > > > • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the > right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil > society, for example reporting back on the main list, but > strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on > the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to > integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is > back up. > > > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the > concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil > society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a > definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits > list that are not strictly government or private sector will be > included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they > show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it > will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have > in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the > Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If > any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. > > > > > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this > coalition/dialogue in a closed list? > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as 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 > > > > > -- > *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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 31 03:14:35 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:14:35 +0900 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <52715911.6020102@wzb.eu> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <52715911.6020102@wzb.eu> Message-ID: If the meeting decided as new list is the best approach, then that's fine. But who will decide if an organization or individual is civil society, in the case of an individual are they civil-society enough. Had this discussion on and off since the start of WSIS, both for participation in CS generally and for individual caucus and working groups. Very difficulty, can be time consuming and every so often controversial. The kind of procedural rat-hole that often ties up the IGC and makes it so unproductive. And of course the list will leak. Bestbits seems to have found a way to be productive. Good. Apologies for raising the process stuff. I'd really like to hear about all the discussions about the Brazil/ICANN summit that went on on Bali. Adam On Oct 31, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I am skeptical about the feasibility of such an approach. There are so many people with various hats on; and, as Adam pointed out, secret strategies won't be secret for a long time. > jeanette > > Am 30.10.2013 20:01, schrieb Carolina Rossini: >> This is the main point that we should all agree on - and it was agreed >> on during the Best Bits meeting: >> >> "3) At the bestbits meeting, pre-IGF, there was broad support to have a >> more limited list, without private sector and government, for the >> purpose of developing strategies." >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Adam Peake > > wrote: >> >> Thanks Joana, >> >> Perhaps it will be more difficult to strategize on an open list, or >> it might feel more difficult. Reality is everything any reasonably >> large group discusses will leak. Likely the only people excluded >> from the conversation will be other civil society, and at a time >> when this very small collection of CS should be looking to outreach. >> >> We survived WSIS and a few years of IGF with open lists >> >> I couldn't attend bestbits, no idea what was discussed there. >> >> > "filter coordination of civil society through steering committees" >> >> Apologies, this must seem like unfair criticism. I do not know how >> bestbits works, just read your comment about debates with bestbits >> steering committee and about trying to decide how to report. >> Frustrating not to be able to attend any of the Bali civil society >> meetings, been hoping for reports since and there's been nothing, >> until you wrote, from any of any (I've seen.) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> > Hi Adam, >> > >> > Just a note to clarify: the goal for having a list closed just to >> civil society in its wider definition is not to "filter coordination >> of civil society through steering committees", quite the contrary: >> it is to be able to strategize in a more organized strategic manner >> among the general community. >> > >> > I believe that this particular issue has positively address >> during the bestbits meeting, where there was some general agreement >> that we could use a closed list for sensitive issues. But if anyone >> feels it is ok to strategize about how to engage in a >> coalition/dialogue with technical and business community having >> companies on the thread or to strategize how to engage with the >> brazilian government for the summit having other governments on the >> list. Please, do not hesitate to raise your point. >> > >> > best >> > >> > joana >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Peake > > wrote: >> > Hi Joana, >> > >> > Thanks for the notes. I was in Bali but not able to attend any >> of the meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans. And have >> been quite surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report >> on this one session is great to see. >> > >> > So a general request: could we please improve communication. >> Mainly I mean reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if >> people are attending as civil society, speaking in some way for >> civil society, then please at least report back to the rest. >> > >> > On the issues of closed lists, etc. Civil society coordination >> shouldn't be filtering through steering committees and others, we >> got through WSIS without an executive, the IGF came from civil >> society through our open processes. This summit and whatever >> follows shouldn't be more different. Please do not take this as >> lack of gratitude for the information received, meetings organized >> and held, etc, etc. >> > >> > Second note more on substance later. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> > >> > > Dear people, >> > > >> > > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared >> about the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name >> yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with >> civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free >> to add any further consideration. >> > > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was >> down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others >> colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to >> report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation. >> > > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting >> with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more >> suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps: >> > > >> > > • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the >> right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil >> society, for example reporting back on the main list, but >> strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on >> the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to >> integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is >> back up. >> > > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the >> concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil >> society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a >> definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits >> list that are not strictly government or private sector will be >> included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they >> show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it >> will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have >> in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the >> Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If >> any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know. >> > > >> > > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this >> coalition/dialogue in a closed list? >> > > 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 >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *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 From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Oct 31 03:32:02 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:32:02 +0200 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> Message-ID: <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> While I wouldn't put in quite as strong terms as Avri, I tend to agree -- I also dislike secret lists. Sometimes closed lists are unavoidable, but I see little need for such here, rather the contrary: it would eat our legitimacy, make it seem we don't act the way we preach. I would have no problem with a closed-but-public list, i.e., one with restricted subscription but publicly visible archives, but I don't see much need for one here. But what we're talking about is a closed list without public archives, with the explicit intent to prevent outsiders from seeing what's being discussed. I don't take an absolutist position against one, might even join (if allowed), but I advise strongly against it. (A really secret lists, whose very existence is not public knowledge, I would want nothing to do with. Don't tell me.) -- Tapani On Oct 31 00:56, Avri Doria (avri at ella.com) wrote: > Hi, > > I tend to beleive that anything coming out of a secret list is suspect. It might just be the machinations of the extremists on a list who can never achieve consensus in the clear light of day and who don't know how to work nicely with others. And when civil society starts to doing it is a beginning of the end of a group's usefulness. > > In practice I, for one, will never be able to accept a secret cabal's marching orders and will never accept the validity of anything that comes out of such a conspiracy. > > We don't beat them by becoming like them. If we start acting like a police state, which starts with conspiratorial secrecy and intimidation, we are lost as a useful part of the Ig dialogue. Really sorry to see this list already take that turn. > > avri > > > > On 31 Oct 2013, at 00:37, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 31/10/13 03:01, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> This is the main point that we should all agree on - and it was agreed on during the Best Bits meeting: > >> > >> "3) At the bestbits meeting, pre-IGF, there was broad support to have a more limited list, without private sector and government, for the purpose of developing strategies." > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Thanks Joana, > >> > >> Perhaps it will be more difficult to strategize on an open list, or it might feel more difficult. Reality is everything any reasonably large group discusses will leak. Likely the only people excluded from the conversation will be other civil society, and at a time when this very small collection of CS should be looking to outreach. > >> > >> We survived WSIS and a few years of IGF with open lists > > > > As some may remember, we have had a closed list for some time already, but have been able to refrain from using it until now. It's private at lists.bestbits.net and the list webpage at which you can subscribe is here: > > > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/private > > > > I also would be happy to work in the open, but I also recognise that others feel differently and that there is some justification for those feelings. > > > > Whilst your point is that "discussions will leak anyway", it's also true that people will strategise in closed cc groups anyway, if we don't provide them a closed list. > > > > So In order to accommodate them, the use of the private list (and potentially other subject-specific closed lists) exists. > > > > -- > > 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Thu Oct 31 04:44:25 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:44:25 +0300 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <52715911.6020102@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 31 October 2013 10:14, Adam Peake wrote: > If the meeting decided as new list is the best approach, then that's fine. > But who will decide if an organization or individual is civil society, in > the case of an individual are they civil-society enough. This come be done through referrals and endorsement by existing members of the list. Had this discussion on and off since the start of WSIS, both for > participation in CS generally and for individual caucus and working groups. > Very difficulty, can be time consuming and every so often controversial. > The kind of procedural rat-hole that often ties up the IGC and makes it so > unproductive. And of course the list will leak. > > Bestbits seems to have found a way to be productive. Good. > > Apologies for raising the process stuff. I'd really like to hear about all > the discussions about the Brazil/ICANN summit that went on on Bali. > > Adam > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Thu Oct 31 04:50:03 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:50:03 +0300 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: On 31 October 2013 10:32, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > While I wouldn't put in quite as strong terms as Avri, > I tend to agree -- I also dislike secret lists. > > Sometimes closed lists are unavoidable, but I see little > need for such here, rather the contrary: it would eat > our legitimacy, make it seem we don't act the way we preach. > > I would have no problem with a closed-but-public list, > i.e., one with restricted subscription but publicly > visible archives, but I don't see much need for one here. > > But what we're talking about is a closed list without > public archives, with the explicit intent to prevent > outsiders from seeing what's being discussed. > I don't take an absolutist position against one, might > even join (if allowed), but I advise strongly against it. > Remember the entities we are working to influence are playing their cards below the table. As CS exposes it's cards, it becomes easy to be countered and defeated. > (A really secret lists, whose very existence is not > public knowledge, I would want nothing to do with. > Don't tell me.) > > -- > Tapani > > On Oct 31 00:56, Avri Doria (avri at ella.com) wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I tend to beleive that anything coming out of a secret list is suspect. > It might just be the machinations of the extremists on a list who can > never achieve consensus in the clear light of day and who don't know how to > work nicely with others. And when civil society starts to doing it is a > beginning of the end of a group's usefulness. > > > > In practice I, for one, will never be able to accept a secret cabal's > marching orders and will never accept the validity of anything that comes > out of such a conspiracy. > > > > We don't beat them by becoming like them. If we start acting like a > police state, which starts with conspiratorial secrecy and intimidation, we > are lost as a useful part of the Ig dialogue. Really sorry to see this > list already take that turn. > > > > avri > > > Mwendwa Kivuva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 31 04:53:42 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 04:53:42 -0400 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: Hi, Tapani is right, I admit, I was a bit strong. Apologies I was stronger than I should have been on this list, based on what has or has not happened on this list as opposed to other lists with many of the same people. But I beleive that if we do not function under a default of transparency, with secrecy only when something dire is threatened or personal privacy rights are involved, we destroy our legitimacy. So much that is wrong is done under the cover of opacity and as civil society we need to be able to call people on that. We need to be able to demand transparency everywhere. How can we do that when we ourselves have secret lists. And how can anyone who functions under any sort of transparency rules participate in such groups. Civil Society often celebrates the whistleblowers because they bring transparency were there is none. Will we need bestbits's own whistleblowers? avri On 31 Oct 2013, at 03:32, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > While I wouldn't put in quite as strong terms as Avri, > I tend to agree -- I also dislike secret lists. > > Sometimes closed lists are unavoidable, but I see little > need for such here, rather the contrary: it would eat > our legitimacy, make it seem we don't act the way we preach. > > I would have no problem with a closed-but-public list, > i.e., one with restricted subscription but publicly > visible archives, but I don't see much need for one here. > > But what we're talking about is a closed list without > public archives, with the explicit intent to prevent > outsiders from seeing what's being discussed. > I don't take an absolutist position against one, might > even join (if allowed), but I advise strongly against it. > > (A really secret lists, whose very existence is not > public knowledge, I would want nothing to do with. > Don't tell me.) > > -- > Tapani > > On Oct 31 00:56, Avri Doria (avri at ella.com) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I tend to beleive that anything coming out of a secret list is suspect. It might just be the machinations of the extremists on a list who can never achieve consensus in the clear light of day and who don't know how to work nicely with others. And when civil society starts to doing it is a beginning of the end of a group's usefulness. >> >> In practice I, for one, will never be able to accept a secret cabal's marching orders and will never accept the validity of anything that comes out of such a conspiracy. >> >> We don't beat them by becoming like them. If we start acting like a police state, which starts with conspiratorial secrecy and intimidation, we are lost as a useful part of the Ig dialogue. Really sorry to see this list already take that turn. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 31 Oct 2013, at 00:37, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 31/10/13 03:01, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> This is the main point that we should all agree on - and it was agreed on during the Best Bits meeting: >>>> >>>> "3) At the bestbits meeting, pre-IGF, there was broad support to have a more limited list, without private sector and government, for the purpose of developing strategies." >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Thanks Joana, >>>> >>>> Perhaps it will be more difficult to strategize on an open list, or it might feel more difficult. Reality is everything any reasonably large group discusses will leak. Likely the only people excluded from the conversation will be other civil society, and at a time when this very small collection of CS should be looking to outreach. >>>> >>>> We survived WSIS and a few years of IGF with open lists >>> >>> As some may remember, we have had a closed list for some time already, but have been able to refrain from using it until now. It's private at lists.bestbits.net and the list webpage at which you can subscribe is here: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/private >>> >>> I also would be happy to work in the open, but I also recognise that others feel differently and that there is some justification for those feelings. >>> >>> Whilst your point is that "discussions will leak anyway", it's also true that people will strategise in closed cc groups anyway, if we don't provide them a closed list. >>> >>> So In order to accommodate them, the use of the private list (and potentially other subject-specific closed lists) exists. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 05:10:44 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:10:44 +0100 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: On Oct 31, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > But I beleive that if we do not function under a default of transparency, with secrecy only when something dire is threatened or personal privacy rights are involved, we destroy our legitimacy. +1 Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 10:47:16 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:47:16 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> Pranesh, You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey". Of which three belong to the EU (Hungary, Latvia, Poland), one is a very strong aspirant to the EU (Turkey), and two others are very strong aspirants (based on income) to the OECD (Chile and Mexico)... By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient number to be drawing any useful conclusions from. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:04 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul A top note that the OECD principles are actually OECD+Egypt+Business+Tech principles, which CISAC helped shape but didn't sign on to. Rest inline: Jeremy Malcolm [2013-10-08 00:04]: > On 08/10/13 09:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: >> apart from process related issues of lack of representation of >> developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a >> statement of principles that had developing world participation look >> different? > > There is only one way to find out, and that is to deal with the > process related issues. But for a rough idea, we can look at the > Brazilian Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > Notable additions compared to the OECD principles: > > * *Universality:* Internet access must be universal so that it becomes > a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the > formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society, for the > benefit of all > * *Standardization and interoperability:* The Internet must be based > on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to > participate in its development On standards, the OECD principles (under "Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet") states: "The Internet's openness also stems from globally accepted, consensus driven technical standards that support global product markets and communications. The roles, openness, and competencies of the global multi-stakeholder institutions that govern standards for different layers of Internet components should be recognised and their contribution should be sought on the different technical elements of public policy objectives." > * *Neutrality of the network:* Filtering or traffic privileges must > meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, > commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of > discrimination or preferential treatment "Maintaining technology neutrality and appropriate quality for all Internet services is also important to ensure an open and dynamic Internet environment. Provision of open Internet access services is critical for the Internet economy." > and notable omissions: > > * Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services; > * Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; > * Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; > * Maximise individual empowerment; > * Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. > > > More could be written about this, but there is a very different > emphasis with the OECD principles much more individualistic and biased > towards trade, than the Brazilian principles. OECD is primarily about economic/trade issues (though not solely about such issues), so that bias is perhaps to be expected. In the 2008 Seoul Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, there were 10 developing countries (Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey) represented in the 39 individual countries that signed the declaration. Sure, the developing countries were outnumbered 3:1, but they still agreed to: * Ensure respect for intellectual property rights. * Create a market-friendly environment for convergence that encourages infrastructure investment, higher levels of connectivity and innovative services and applications. * Promote Internet-based innovation, competition, and user choice. * Acting as a key driver for the creation of enterprises and communities and stimulating closer global co-operation. * Promote the secure and responsible use of the Internet that respects international social and ethical norms and that increases transparency and accountability. * Establish a regulatory environment that assures a level playing field for competition. * Stimulate investment and competition in the development of high capacity information and communication infrastructures and the delivery of Internet-enabled services within and across borders. * Maintain an open environment that supports the free flow of information, research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business transformation. * Combine efforts to combat digital piracy with innovative approaches which provide creators and rights holders with incentives to create and disseminate works in a manner that is beneficial to creators, users and our economies as a whole. * Increase cross-border co-operation of governments and enforcement authorities in the areas of improving cyber-security, combating spam, as well as protecting privacy, consumers and minors. * Empowering consumers and users in online transactions and exchanges. Most (all?) of the things that you'd think developing countries would omit were accepted by 10 of them. Just sayin'. Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------+ Postgraduate Associate & Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 31 06:48:04 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:48:04 +0100 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <021F97EF-C97D-46C0-8310-12B66D8E61E2@uzh.ch> On Oct 31, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > But I beleive that if we do not function under a default of transparency, with secrecy only when something dire is threatened or personal privacy rights are involved, we destroy our legitimacy. +1 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: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 07:24:45 2013 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:24:45 -0400 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <021F97EF-C97D-46C0-8310-12B66D8E61E2@uzh.ch> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <021F97EF-C97D-46C0-8310-12B66D8E61E2@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:48 AM, William Drake wrote: > On Oct 31, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > But I beleive that if we do not function under a default of transparency, > with secrecy only when something dire is threatened or personal privacy > rights are involved, we destroy our legitimacy. > > > +1 Bill Agreed -- McTim From pimienta at funredes.org Thu Oct 31 08:34:10 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:34:10 -0400 Subject: Secret vs CS list (was Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all) In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <021F97EF-C97D-46C0-8310-12B66D8E61E2@uzh.ch> Message-ID: I am/was not in Bali and just reading from that list I got the (maybe wrong) message that it was considered to open a list reserved to Civil Society to allow that stakeholder group to elaborate strategies without interference of the other stakeholkder groups but many feel that this is a bad idea because "secret lists" are not good and anyway information will leak anyway. If this is not the case please clarify for those who does not hold the implicit context information owned by the meeting attendees only, and sorry for the misunderstanding. If that is the case I (who have suggested to create such a list some weeks ago in the governance list) find totally inapropriate to qualify of "secret" a list defined to serve exclusively the CS group and allow to elaborate strategies within CS prior to expose it to the multistakeholder arena. The question of leaking is totally irrelevant in my opinion. Civil society is driven by a transparency concept and I remember many face to face CS caucus meetings which were "infiltrated" by non CS persons during the WSIS process. What is at stake is the non interference in the CS debate of those intruders not the fact that they can listen to our debates. ============ And by the way, I am a CS actor with a single hat, I did was in Baku (in a side event) and felt afterwards very strange to discover months later the existence of Bestbit (meeting and lists) of which I was not invited and not aware of. So I do not like neither secret processes and I wish Bestbit would have been informed in IGF main list so I could have participated from the beginning. If a CS exclusive IGF list is decided it shall advertise also, without secret, in the multi-stakeholder list. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Oct 31 08:55:02 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:55:02 +0200 Subject: Secret vs CS list (was Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all) In-Reply-To: <20131031124239.0FD2432870C@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: <20131031125502.GJ3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> On Oct 31 08:34, Daniel Pimienta (pimienta at funredes.org) wrote: > What is at stake is the non interference in the CS debate of those > intruders not the fact that they can listen to our debates. In that case I have misunderstood, but as I already stated: > > I would have no problem with a closed-but-public list, > > i.e., one with restricted subscription but publicly > > visible archives If by interference you mean outsiders' unwanted participation in our internal discussions, such a list would suffice to keep them out without compromising our commitment to transparency. -- Tapani Tarvainen From pimienta at funredes.org Thu Oct 31 09:13:58 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:13:58 -0400 Subject: Secret vs CS list (was Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all) In-Reply-To: <20131031125502.GJ3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <20131031125502.GJ3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: > > > I would have no problem with a closed-but-public list, i.e., > one with restricted subscription but publicly visible archives I agree. >If by interference you mean outsiders' unwanted participation in our >internal discussions, Exact. >such a list would suffice to keep them out without compromising our >commitment to transparency. Yes in theory. In practice the issue of deciding who is allowed to subscribe is not a piece of cake as some players clearly minded by .com or .gov interest can easily argue they belong to some .org as an alibi. It is then a question or very explicit (and complex) defined rules or may be more efficient a community decision based on consensus on each request. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Oct 31 10:37:36 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:37:36 -0400 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Oct 31, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Whilst your point is that "discussions will leak anyway", it's also true that people will strategise in closed cc groups anyway, if we don't provide them a closed list. > > So In order to accommodate them, the use of the private list (and potentially other subject-specific closed lists) exists Freedom of association implies ability of any set of folks to get together and discuss ideas, whether in public or private. There's nothing wrong with that occurring, and you should presume that others are doing the same (I think I've actually lost track of the number of Internet-governance related mailing lists that I'm on... ;-) It's important to realize what is lost from any closed discussion - specifically, the result is not necessarily representative of any particular open community at that point. (For example, the output of a "design team" in the IETF becomes simply one possible suggestion to the working group for moving forward; sometimes it can be very helpful in an open process to have folks go off and put something down in writing as a first draft; this doesn't invalidate the openness of the process, so long the more developed result is in simply taken on face value as a input to the open process.) As long as the folks on a closed CS-oriented mailing list remember to come back with a proposal to the community at large, it's not much different than if it were developed as a strawman position via a flurry of private emails among interested folks. (The other alternative, of course, would be to define your community via a set of objective terms and conditions, thus allowing work in closed lists which are fully available to those "in the community", but this would appear somewhat problematic for civil society as many folks in society having multiple roles at any given moment.) My thoughts alone - feel free to use/edit/ignore/discard as desired... /John From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Oct 31 11:44:36 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:14:36 +0530 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Tue Oct 8 11:40:43 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:40:43 +0200 Subject: [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Surveillance: not just a US issue In-Reply-To: References: <52535F24.50804@cis-india.org> <5253EE51.5070805@oneworldsee.org> Message-ID: Very good point ... but advocacy supported by evidence (even if only evidence of what the public *doesn't* know) is usually the best way to go. As you rightly say Poncelet, the nature of these things is that they are not in the public domain, but I wonder if there would be value in getting a good investigative journalist in each country onto the trail? cheers Anne On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > True talk indeed, however not all are within the public domain, especially > in developing countries like within the African continent where even the > ISP's won't even go public with what they do or not do, so the important > thing for me, is more advocacy and discussions especially within our > National Internet Governance platform's where all stake holders are present > to discuse issues on surveillance, privacy etc and what especially is > within the National Interest pertinent to security etc. > > My take > > Poncelet > > > > > On 8 October 2013 11:36, vale - oneworldsee < > valentina.pellizzer at oneworldsee.org> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Thanks, >> it is really important to get world overviews >> hvale >> >> On 08/10/13 12:17, Anne Jellema wrote: >> > Thanks Pranesh - these are fascinating pieces. I have been >> > wondering for awhile if there is a widespread pattern of govts >> > using hotly contested license negotiations or spectrum auctions to >> > secure access to data. It only makes sense that they would try, I >> > guess. Does anyone have similar intelligence from other countries? >> > best Anne >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Pranesh Prakash >> > > wrote: >> > >> > A two-part piece I wrote in the NYT India blog on surveillance in >> > India. >> > >> > Part 1: How Surveillance Works in India http://goo.gl/ahjDy4 >> > >> > Part 2: Can India Trust Its Government on Privacy? >> > http://goo.gl/ih4PLW >> > >> > ~ Pranesh >> > >> > Anne Jellema [2013-10-04 09:21]: >> >> Hi all >> >> >> >> Yet more evidence (this time from South Africa) that governments >> > beyond the >> >> US are using technology to escalate surveillance of civilians, >> >> and for their own dubious reasons as well as to cooperate with >> >> the Americans. >> >> >> >> Full disclosure: the author is my partner. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> >> > >> http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2013/10/04/surveillance-may-turn-many-of-us-into-enemies >> > >> > Surveillance may turn many of us into ‘enemies’ >> >> BY ANTHONY >> > BUTLER< >> http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/staffprofiles/2012/08/10/anthony-butler-profile >> >, >> > >> > 04 OCTOBER 2013, 05:51 >> >> >> >> SOUTH Africa’s intelligence operatives often appear hopelessly >> > inept. But >> >> new technologies are empowering even the most incompetent >> >> spooks. Revelations by the WikiLeaks "Spy Files" project and >> > whistle-blower Edward >> >> Snowden point to a large escalation in citizen surveillance. >> >> >> >> In South Africa, crime intelligence and private investigators >> > routinely >> >> circumvent the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act >> >> to >> > access >> >> individual citizens’ e-mails and phone calls. Targets can simply >> > be added >> >> to legitimate surveillance projects. Even more concerning is the >> > likelihood >> >> that there is already systematic blanket surveillance by the >> >> state. >> >> >> >> The Citizen Lab at Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs >> >> recently revealed that FinSpy software is hosted by one or more >> >> South African computers, almost certainly within the government. >> >> FinSpy inserts >> > "trojans" >> >> onto target computers and cellphones, allowing remote >> >> surveillance of keystrokes, passwords, text messages, e-mails and >> >> voice data. It >> > can even >> >> turn a cellphone into a microphone to eavesdrop on private >> > conversations >> >> (which explains some politicians’ unnerving habit of removing >> >> the >> > batteries >> >> from their phones). >> >> >> >> Huawei Technologies, the world’s second-biggest >> >> telecommunications >> > company, >> >> is a recent investor in South Africa. According to one assessment >> >> in Foreign Affairs magazine, Huawei is a Chinese intelligence >> >> agency "masquerading as a tech business". Using software >> >> developed for >> > domestic >> >> repression, it could allegedly supply passive surveillance >> > capability to a >> >> friendly ruling party. >> >> >> >> A much smaller local company, VASTech, has been a focus of >> >> WikiLeaks’ attention. The Wall Street Journal revealed in 2011 >> >> that the Stellenbosch-based firm’s systems helped the Gadaffi >> >> regime monitor millions of mobile and landline calls. This >> >> technology was also >> > reportedly >> >> sold to the Mubarak state. >> >> >> >> WikiLeaks-hosted company documents show that VASTech’s Zebra >> > system can >> >> monitor 20-million voice channels simultaneously. Such blanket >> > interception >> >> is complemented by archiving power that allows agents to >> > "backtrack and >> >> retrieve all the communications of suspects prior to an >> >> incident". >> > Network >> >> analysis permits the identification of "key relationships >> >> between stakeholders" and lays bare "the structure and operation >> >> of syndicate networks". >> >> >> >> Even anonymous cellphones are no defence against Zebra: it uses >> > "speaker >> >> identification" technology to "reveal unknown numbers and new >> >> mobile devices used by targets". >> >> >> >> VASTech describes surveillance targets as "criminals and enemies >> > of the >> >> public". But it is officials in state agencies, and not software >> > suppliers, >> >> who decide how technology is used. Given that the state’s >> >> national interception centre probably possesses such instruments, >> >> can >> > citizens be >> >> confident that intrastate oversight mechanisms are effective? >> >> >> >> Drug-smuggling, xenophobia, illicit commerce, and human >> > trafficking, among >> >> many other matters, are routinely touted as "threats to national >> > security". >> >> This could license the surveillance of a vast swathe of >> >> commercial >> > entities >> >> and citizens. >> >> >> >> Surveillance systems are excellent instruments for the mapping >> >> of >> > internal >> >> political party factions. It is possible to take a player in >> >> national, provincial or local politics, reconstruct his >> >> "collaboration >> > networks", and >> >> eavesdrop on his archived conversations. There is nothing to >> > prevent such >> >> technology being used against recalcitrant trade unionists — >> > especially >> >> when, as State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele has observed, so >> >> much industrial action is "illegal". >> >> >> >> The KwaZulu-Natal police’s Lt-Gen Solomon Makgale made the >> >> insightful observation this week that service delivery protesters >> >> are also >> > criminals. >> >> A protest, he noted, "stops being a protest when a crime is >> > committed … if >> >> you are impeding the flow of traffic, then obviously you’ll be >> >> in >> > conflict >> >> with the law". >> >> >> >> South Africa is experiencing a rapid expansion in the reach and >> > potential >> >> power of state surveillance. It is unclear how to prevent what >> >> may >> > become >> >> an equally rapid rise in the number of citizens defined by state >> > agencies >> >> as "enemies of the public". >> >> >> >> • *Butler teaches politics at the University of Cape Town.* >> >> >> > >> > -- 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- 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 >> > >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> > Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe >> > from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to >> > webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send >> > email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit >> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> - -- >> valentina pellizzer >> izvrsna direktorica/executive directress >> oneworld - platform for southeast europe (owpsee) >> >> http://www.oneworldsee.org >> http://www.oneworldsee.org/civicit >> http://www.ilab.ba >> http://www.zenskaposla.ba >> http://mapirajnasilje.net >> >> gsm: ++ 387 (0)61 484 038 >> tel/fax: ++387 (0)33 834 899 >> twitter: @froatosebe >> jabber: h-vale at jabber.org >> skype: levantina6767 >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSU+5RAAoJEF8wdzgkt3vihiYIANe7VjT7TBTE/BRYW4asSj+N >> q3xiqsAhYRf4x8fczMliauriWGOwbpck3zSuKahj74zyXLagJW40/zDsX47HPYuq >> 1efH94aCqiaA8DY7KYDUkivnTjMqSNwDogOMDb56mlpHjOhHK7rTcd+sN0se4Dbd >> 5+q4Ww6bKhkmTMX3id7efaKbYADML1WT3uq0KJjp9ooG21Gh8HHnInSHOfTOPf/O >> 6IQEJz5/iqSuhQTdsTav/gY9NVWVl+1b5Gz4tJJMCxNJfsENohU3/Am+y0gq1lcd >> jFnx8OaJtY+xqPPOTEgRDxKiqlLY7biY13e7POEogT1r3oIVgfxTQ/se+aaSP8E= >> =d57i >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > 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 > > * > * > > -- 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: From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Oct 8 15:05:14 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:05:14 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance: not just a US issue In-Reply-To: References: <52535F24.50804@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <5254576A.5040108@cis-india.org> Anne Jellema [2013-10-08 06:17]: > Thanks Pranesh - these are fascinating pieces. I have been wondering for > awhile if there is a widespread pattern of govts using hotly contested > license negotiations or spectrum auctions to secure access to data. It only > makes sense that they would try, I guess. Telecom companies, in every country I know of, operate under a licence from the government. This is so even when we aren't talking about wireless (and hence aren't talking about spectrum). The difficulty of procuring the licence might vary greatly across countries, but you need a licence. This gives the government an extra leverage over telecom providers (and ISPs) that they do not have over web services companies. The government can't threaten to revoke a web service's licence if it fails to comply with certain licence requirements. This is also another reason why it is far more difficult to convince telecom operators to put in place "transparency reports" than it is to convince web services, though even that in itself is difficult enough. And licence requirements are much easier to put in place (since they, essentially, are contracts) than governmental regulations and legislation. Further, they receive far less scrutiny. Importantly, privacy-threatening or free expression-threatening licence conditions do not need imposed under 'hotly contested licence negotiations', since generally, though not necessarily, the parties have very unequal bargaining positions. The government usually would have a state-owned telecom operator already and can prevent private companies from being granted licences unless they comply. Further, if the government offers to pay the telecom company for the additional monetary costs of surveillance, which they many times do not, the cost of violating the privacy and trust of their customers / their customers' freedom of expression, association, etc., is negligible for the telecom company. So unless the monetary costs imposed by the licence conditions are both high and are forced to be internalised, the telecom company really needn't care. > Does anyone have similar > intelligence from other countries? While I don't have similar intelligence from other countries, I can't readily think of reasons as to why there would be significant departures from this analysis. -- 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: From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Oct 8 16:19:05 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:19:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <525468B9.1010002@cis-india.org> michael gurstein [2013-10-08 10:47]: > Pranesh, > > You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile, > Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey". The IMF lists 156[1] developing countries,[2] and 21 developed countries, and that's the list I used. As per the IMF, all 10 of the above are EMDEs. On the other hand, the World Bank classification[3] lists 139 as developing countries, and the above countries break-down as: Lower-middle-income economies: Egypt India Indonesia Senegal Upper-middle-income economies: Hungary Mexico Turkey High-income economies: Chile (OECD member) Latvia Poland (OECD member) The World Bank considers all low- and middle-income economies to be "developing". So that would cut down the list of 10 countries to 7. Cheers, Pranesh [1]: These are the 21 countries that are "Advanced Economies" (as opposed to "Emerging Market and Developing Economies") and are not considered developing countries by the IMF: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States. [2]: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/pdf/text.pdf [2]: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups > By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list > (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient > number to be drawing any useful conclusions from. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I don't mean to draw crude 'useful conclusions' as to what developing countries want and don't want. (I hardly want to draw conclusions, for that matter, useful or otherwise.) I'm just wondering aloud what practical differences would be between the IG policy stances of developing countries and developed countries. I'm looking for hypotheses, not conclusions. Would you hypothesise that developing countries would be more left-leaning than developed countries, and more prone to state intervention in lieu of market mechanisms? And if so, would any of them do so by actually negating all market-related terminology in the principles or by using caveats along the lines of "while we would ideally like to allow markets, in those cases where markets can't or don't deliver the universal access at the low costs that we desire, we as states will have to step in". If it is the latter, I wonder which developed country would oppose that language, since language similar to that already exists in the OECD+ Seoul Declaration of 2008. This is a thought experiment I'd like to garner responses from and learn. Because I really don't know much about this, and have done far less work around these issues than you (Michael), APC, IT for Change, LIRNEAsia, Consumers International, and so many other groups that work on these issues. Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------+ 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: From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Oct 8 16:24:06 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:24:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: I* Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5253C047.4060004@cis-india.org> References: <5253C047.4060004@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <525469E6.7040509@cis-india.org> Did any of the I* bodies call for public inputs before putting out this statement? I'm only on three APNIC mailing lists, and I don't believe I saw any discussion relating to this statement before it was issued. I am very interested in examining existing practices (and best practices) in the Internet technical communities which are often held up to be the gold standard by which others should judge their 'openness'. ~ Pranesh Pranesh Prakash [2013-10-08 04:20]: > What do folks make of this statement? > > Key terms: Internet fragmentation; undermining of trust & confidence; > evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation; globalization > of ICANN & IANA functions; "all stakeholders, including all governments, > on an equal footing"; IPv6. > > ~ Pranesh > > ==== > > http://goo.gl/uZSnuq > > Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation > > Montevideo, Uruguay 7 October 2013 - The leaders of organizations > responsible for coordination of the Internet technical infrastructure > globally have met in Montevideo, Uruguay, to consider current issues > affecting the future of the Internet. > > The Internet and World Wide Web have brought major benefits in social > and economic development worldwide. Both have been built and governed in > the public interest through unique mechanisms for global > multistakeholder Internet cooperation, which have been intrinsic to > their success. The leaders discussed the clear need to continually > strengthen and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be > able to address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet. > > In this sense: > > They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, > and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They > expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and > confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of > pervasive monitoring and surveillance. > > They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet > Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts > towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA > functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including > all governments, participate on an equal footing. > > They also called for the transition to IPv6 to remain a top priority > globally. In particular Internet content providers must serve content > with both IPv4 and IPv6 services, in order to be fully reachable on the > global Internet. > > Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO > African Network Information Center (AFRINIC) > > Paul Wilson, Director General > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) > > John Curran, CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > Russ Housley, Chair > Internet Architecture Board (IAB) > > Fadi Chehadé, President and CEO > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN > > Jari Arkko, Chair > Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) > > Lynn St Amour, President and CEO > Internet Society (ISOC) > > Raúl Echeberría, CEO > Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC) > > Axel Pawlik, Managing Director > Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) > > Jeff Jaffe, CEO > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > -- 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: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Oct 3 03:06:44 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:36:44 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some interesting thoughts from Rick Falkvinge on the BRICS cable here: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2013/09/logical-for-brics-countries-to-build-their-own-internet-infrastructure-circumventing-u-s-surveillance/ It's fascinating to see, however, how the cable is now being projected as a tool to circumvent US surveillance, while when it was first announced, the emphasis was on improved global coverage (especially better access for African countries) and better trade and development relations for BRICS countries. It may of course well be able to achieve all of these things, but it's interesting to see how those initially justifications now don't seem to be receiving too much (media) attention anymore. Best, Anja On 3 October 2013 10:48, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > Thanks for this report. > > Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern about > fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the idea is not > to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach you etc, it's not a > proposal to censor the net. I think this mis-guided and unhelpful to the > proposal. Second, any detail of the cable: who will build, who are the > partners (and has anyone looked at the telecom/appropriate law of potential > partner countries? Suspect we might not like what we find -- US and UK not > alone in having bad law.) > > Adam > > > > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Sorry for any duplication of this message. > > > > To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary > and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in > global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the > Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy > > > > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of > the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This > joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and > CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging > trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and > Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ > > > > Best wishes > > > > Marília > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 01:46:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:16:16 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> Message-ID: <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> I am willing to take the technical community at its word on the Montevideo statement that they indeed seek truly substantive progress towards globalisation of ICANN and IANA function. There is also an important clarification provided by John that " we're all using the term globalization to mean"free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance". Raul has also made a clear statement that LACNIC supports "ICANN becoming an international organisation incorporated under a convenient jurisdiction". There are other good leads in ARIN's response to WGEC - like, technical bodies are best guided under clearly set but relatively higher level public policy principles ........ I think we may have a basis here to try to move forward. And this is a very good time to do so, with global confidence in the Internet shaken post-Snowden as perhaps never before. If people are to get a real response, it is now. Anyway, I can understand that actual working technical organisations, with clear organisational responsibilities, and a place in the IG ecosystem, would be conservative to actually begun making specific proposals. I mean they cant perhaps do it in the same way as civil society can. And here a good division of labour comes into picture. So, what about civil society groups making a statement welcoming the Montevideo statement, especially its commitment to seeing some substantial progress forward on globalisation of ICANN and IANA functions, and in this context, 'we present the following proposal for the consideration and support of the technical community'. The proposal would be made of some clear principles followed by specific (though yet a bit higher level) institutional steps and processes for globalisation of the ICANN and IANA. We can discuss these principles and specific institutional changes on this list so that we have a statement that is likely to be accepted by the technical community. If we can agree to this and take a common statement to, well, the governments, I think we would have accomplished a lot. I can bet, a real shift will begun that day. Any takers? parminder On Wednesday 09 October 2013 05:20 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:43 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:24 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of >>> ICANN and IANA >>> a would call a truly substantial development. >> >> Can you please point to where such a proposal/ call exists... > > Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, 3rd bullet - > > "They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA > functions, > towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all > governments, > participate on an equal footing." > > It is a _call_, not a _proposal_ > >> Is there agreement on making ICANN an international organisation >> incorporated under international law and not US law, and free from >> all kinds of US jurisdiction, and in a host country agreement with >> the US government and so on.... That is what globalisation or >> internationalisation means..... I happy to support any such proposal >> from the technical community, and this can be basis of some real change. > > Again, it is a call for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, not > a plan for > doing such... I do believe that we're all using the term > globalization to mean > "free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance". > >> Opening a new office in Africa or China or India is not globalisation >> - even US has embassies in all these place, because of which US >> cannot be called as having been globalised or internationalised. > > Agreed. > >> We have always been very forthcoming to present what we think it >> would look like (although always open to further comments and >> changes). For instance, see this recent statement to the WGEC by 46 >> organisations including ours, >> http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/Statement_on_democratizing_Internet_governance_0.pdf >> . Happy to hear your comments on this. > > Is the new "Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board" a > component of > the 'new UN body', or an distinct entity? > >>> For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"... how would one >>> globalize the >>> 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the >>> USG/NTIA? >> See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes over >> this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind of US >> jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to globalise/ >> internationalise something ? > > There are many different possible structures and mechanisms, for example, > you propose a new UN body, an Oversight Board, globalization of ICANN, > and maintenance/strengthening of the existing IGF. I can easily imagine > other methods of solving this problem with different arrangements of > bodies > and mechanisms. > > The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation does not > propose any particular solution, but only states that several > organizations > which are involved in Internet coordination believe that the > globalization of > ICANN and IANA functions (towards an environment in which all > stakeholders, > including all governments, participate on an equal footing) is a goal > worth > accelerating. > > Given your strong expression of concern over the statement, I guess the > question arises - would you have preferred a statement which indicated > that > the current USG oversight of ICANN and IANA is just fine? That certainly > would have supported the status quo... > > /John > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 9 02:21:11 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:21:11 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5254F5D7.9080503@ciroap.org> On 09/10/13 13:46, parminder wrote: > So, what about civil society groups making a statement welcoming the > Montevideo statement, especially its commitment to seeing some > substantial progress forward on globalisation of ICANN and IANA > functions, and in this context, 'we present the following proposal for > the consideration and support of the technical community'. At least the first part of that (which would be short and simple) sounds like a potential output from Best Bits in Bali, and would be a good step towards rapprochement with the technical community with whom civil society has long been at loggerheads on Internet governance reforms. Suggest you raise it in the session? -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 03:28:29 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:58:29 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5254F5D7.9080503@ciroap.org> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> <5254F5D7.9080503@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5255059D.4020404@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:51 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/10/13 13:46, parminder wrote: >> So, what about civil society groups making a statement welcoming the >> Montevideo statement, especially its commitment to seeing some >> substantial progress forward on globalisation of ICANN and IANA >> functions, and in this context, 'we present the following proposal >> for the consideration and support of the technical community'. > > At least the first part of that (which would be short and simple) > sounds like a potential output from Best Bits in Bali, and would be a > good step towards rapprochement with the technical community with whom > civil society has long been at loggerheads on Internet governance > reforms. Suggest you raise it in the session? First and the second part are organically linked... I have no desire to provide legitimacy to a technical community statement on the post Snowden discontent with global IG mechanisms if it is purely a public relations exercise, which I would see it to be unless they (and intermediating civil society) show seriousness in engaging with clear reform proposals.... parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 06:08:03 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:08:03 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 06:07:57 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:07:57 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance: not just a US issue Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 09:44:50 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:44:50 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52555DD2.6000004@cafonso.ca> To add some more "spice": both Chile and Mexico are still developing countries (may be listed as "emerging countries" in some circles), and while Chile is not in the OECD, Mexico is. --c.a. On 10/08/2013 11:47 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Pranesh, > > You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile, > Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey". > > Of which three belong to the EU (Hungary, Latvia, Poland), one is a very > strong aspirant to the EU (Turkey), and two others are very strong aspirants > (based on income) to the OECD (Chile and Mexico)... > > By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list > (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient > number to be drawing any useful conclusions from. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:04 PM > To: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul > > A top note that the OECD principles are actually > OECD+Egypt+Business+Tech principles, which CISAC helped shape but didn't > sign on to. Rest inline: > > Jeremy Malcolm [2013-10-08 00:04]: >> On 08/10/13 09:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>> Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: >>> apart from process related issues of lack of representation of >>> developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a >>> statement of principles that had developing world participation look >>> different? >> >> There is only one way to find out, and that is to deal with the >> process related issues. But for a rough idea, we can look at the >> Brazilian Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> Notable additions compared to the OECD principles: >> >> * *Universality:* Internet access must be universal so that it becomes >> a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the >> formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society, for the >> benefit of all >> * *Standardization and interoperability:* The Internet must be based >> on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to >> participate in its development > > On standards, the OECD principles (under "Promote the open, distributed and > interconnected nature of the Internet") states: > > "The Internet's openness also stems from globally accepted, consensus driven > technical standards that support global product markets and communications. > The roles, openness, and competencies of the global multi-stakeholder > institutions that govern standards for different layers of Internet > components should be recognised and their contribution should be sought on > the different technical elements of public policy objectives." > >> * *Neutrality of the network:* Filtering or traffic privileges must >> meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, >> commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of >> discrimination or preferential treatment > > "Maintaining technology neutrality and appropriate quality for all Internet > services is also important to ensure an open and dynamic Internet > environment. Provision of open Internet access services is critical for the > Internet economy." > >> and notable omissions: >> >> * Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and > services; >> * Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; >> * Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; >> * Maximise individual empowerment; >> * Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. >> >> >> More could be written about this, but there is a very different >> emphasis with the OECD principles much more individualistic and biased >> towards trade, than the Brazilian principles. > > OECD is primarily about economic/trade issues (though not solely about such > issues), so that bias is perhaps to be expected. In the 2008 Seoul > Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, there were 10 developing > countries (Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, > Senegal, Turkey) represented in the 39 individual countries that signed the > declaration. Sure, the developing countries were outnumbered 3:1, but they > still agreed to: > > * Ensure respect for intellectual property rights. > * Create a market-friendly environment for convergence that encourages > infrastructure investment, higher levels of connectivity and innovative > services and applications. > * Promote Internet-based innovation, competition, and user choice. > * Acting as a key driver for the creation of enterprises and communities and > stimulating closer global co-operation. > * Promote the secure and responsible use of the Internet that respects > international social and ethical norms and that increases transparency and > accountability. > * Establish a regulatory environment that assures a level playing field for > competition. > * Stimulate investment and competition in the development of high capacity > information and communication infrastructures and the delivery of > Internet-enabled services within and across borders. > * Maintain an open environment that supports the free flow of information, > research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business transformation. > * Combine efforts to combat digital piracy with innovative approaches which > provide creators and rights holders with incentives to create and > disseminate works in a manner that is beneficial to creators, users and our > economies as a whole. > * Increase cross-border co-operation of governments and enforcement > authorities in the areas of improving cyber-security, combating spam, as > well as protecting privacy, consumers and minors. > * Empowering consumers and users in online transactions and exchanges. > > Most (all?) of the things that you'd think developing countries would omit > were accepted by 10 of them. Just sayin'. > > Cheers, > Pranesh > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Policy Director > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: > @pranesh_prakash > -------------------+ > Postgraduate Associate & Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society > Project, Yale Law School > T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org > > > From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 09:45:37 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:45:37 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <525468B9.1010002@cis-india.org> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> <525468B9.1010002@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <52555E01.1060904@cafonso.ca> Never, ever trust the IMF :) --c.a. On 10/08/2013 05:19 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > michael gurstein [2013-10-08 10:47]: >> Pranesh, >> >> You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile, >> Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey". > > The IMF lists 156[1] developing countries,[2] and 21 developed > countries, and that's the list I used. As per the IMF, all 10 of the > above are EMDEs. > > On the other hand, the World Bank classification[3] lists 139 as > developing countries, and the above countries break-down as: > > Lower-middle-income economies: > Egypt > India > Indonesia > Senegal > > Upper-middle-income economies: > Hungary > Mexico > Turkey > > High-income economies: > Chile (OECD member) > Latvia > Poland (OECD member) > > The World Bank considers all low- and middle-income economies to be > "developing". So that would cut down the list of 10 countries to 7. > > Cheers, > Pranesh > > [1]: These are the 21 countries that are "Advanced Economies" (as > opposed to "Emerging Market and Developing Economies") and are not > considered developing countries by the IMF: Australia, Austria, Belgium, > Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, > Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, > Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States. > [2]: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/pdf/text.pdf > [2]: > http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups > >> By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list >> (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient >> number to be drawing any useful conclusions from. > > I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I don't mean to draw crude > 'useful conclusions' as to what developing countries want and don't > want. (I hardly want to draw conclusions, for that matter, useful or > otherwise.) I'm just wondering aloud what practical differences would > be between the IG policy stances of developing countries and developed > countries. I'm looking for hypotheses, not conclusions. > > Would you hypothesise that developing countries would be more > left-leaning than developed countries, and more prone to state > intervention in lieu of market mechanisms? And if so, would any of them > do so by actually negating all market-related terminology in the > principles or by using caveats along the lines of "while we would > ideally like to allow markets, in those cases where markets can't or > don't deliver the universal access at the low costs that we desire, we > as states will have to step in". If it is the latter, I wonder which > developed country would oppose that language, since language similar to > that already exists in the OECD+ Seoul Declaration of 2008. > > This is a thought experiment I'd like to garner responses from and > learn. Because I really don't know much about this, and have done far > less work around these issues than you (Michael), APC, IT for Change, > LIRNEAsia, Consumers International, and so many other groups that work > on these issues. > > Cheers, > Pranesh > From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 10:00:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:30:28 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <52555DD2.6000004@cafonso.ca> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> <52555DD2.6000004@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5255617C.3060402@itforchange.net> Chile too now is an OECD member..... On the larger issue, I am rather surprised and disappointed at the robust support from developing country people of the OECD 'global' Internet policy making model - both the process and substance of which being hugely problematic.... I dont have the time right now to engage into a discussion, but could not resist expressing my strong feeling in general about the issue... Democracy is in itself important, it is not a if-we-disregard-the-process-issue thing..... And BTW, when it comes to multistakeholderism, the same lets-for-the-moment-disregard-the-process-issue proposition never seems not to apply. Is multistakeholderism then a higher value than democracy? OECD is a centre price of 'global' Internet policy making today, which is then exported through one to one or plurilateral deals to developing countries... It is a fact that many developing countries fall prey to this unprincipled approach on narrow short term self interest consideration.... And playing developing countires against one another through such short term deals is a major US/ OECD method of spreading their regime globally. This is a major axis of global digital domination.. Civil society interested in democratic values should simply and roundly criticise such models of global policy making. That is the only basic attitude that can be taken towards them. The developing countries who have signed some of the mentioned OECD documents, are never a part of the core discussions, agenda framing and final formulation -- and so to pass off their sign on as a measure of they being a part of the process is a very undemocratic take..... Rest later.... parmidner On Wednesday 09 October 2013 07:14 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > To add some more "spice": both Chile and Mexico are still developing > countries (may be listed as "emerging countries" in some circles), and > while Chile is not in the OECD, Mexico is. > > --c.a. > > On 10/08/2013 11:47 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Pranesh, >> >> You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile, >> Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey". >> >> Of which three belong to the EU (Hungary, Latvia, Poland), one is a very >> strong aspirant to the EU (Turkey), and two others are very strong aspirants >> (based on income) to the OECD (Chile and Mexico)... >> >> By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list >> (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient >> number to be drawing any useful conclusions from. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash >> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:04 PM >> To: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul >> >> A top note that the OECD principles are actually >> OECD+Egypt+Business+Tech principles, which CISAC helped shape but didn't >> sign on to. Rest inline: >> >> Jeremy Malcolm [2013-10-08 00:04]: >>> On 08/10/13 09:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>>> Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: >>>> apart from process related issues of lack of representation of >>>> developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a >>>> statement of principles that had developing world participation look >>>> different? >>> There is only one way to find out, and that is to deal with the >>> process related issues. But for a rough idea, we can look at the >>> Brazilian Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>> Notable additions compared to the OECD principles: >>> >>> * *Universality:* Internet access must be universal so that it becomes >>> a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the >>> formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society, for the >>> benefit of all >>> * *Standardization and interoperability:* The Internet must be based >>> on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to >>> participate in its development >> On standards, the OECD principles (under "Promote the open, distributed and >> interconnected nature of the Internet") states: >> >> "The Internet's openness also stems from globally accepted, consensus driven >> technical standards that support global product markets and communications. >> The roles, openness, and competencies of the global multi-stakeholder >> institutions that govern standards for different layers of Internet >> components should be recognised and their contribution should be sought on >> the different technical elements of public policy objectives." >> >>> * *Neutrality of the network:* Filtering or traffic privileges must >>> meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, >>> commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of >>> discrimination or preferential treatment >> "Maintaining technology neutrality and appropriate quality for all Internet >> services is also important to ensure an open and dynamic Internet >> environment. Provision of open Internet access services is critical for the >> Internet economy." >> >>> and notable omissions: >>> >>> * Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and >> services; >>> * Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; >>> * Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; >>> * Maximise individual empowerment; >>> * Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. >>> >>> >>> More could be written about this, but there is a very different >>> emphasis with the OECD principles much more individualistic and biased >>> towards trade, than the Brazilian principles. >> OECD is primarily about economic/trade issues (though not solely about such >> issues), so that bias is perhaps to be expected. In the 2008 Seoul >> Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, there were 10 developing >> countries (Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, >> Senegal, Turkey) represented in the 39 individual countries that signed the >> declaration. Sure, the developing countries were outnumbered 3:1, but they >> still agreed to: >> >> * Ensure respect for intellectual property rights. >> * Create a market-friendly environment for convergence that encourages >> infrastructure investment, higher levels of connectivity and innovative >> services and applications. >> * Promote Internet-based innovation, competition, and user choice. >> * Acting as a key driver for the creation of enterprises and communities and >> stimulating closer global co-operation. >> * Promote the secure and responsible use of the Internet that respects >> international social and ethical norms and that increases transparency and >> accountability. >> * Establish a regulatory environment that assures a level playing field for >> competition. >> * Stimulate investment and competition in the development of high capacity >> information and communication infrastructures and the delivery of >> Internet-enabled services within and across borders. >> * Maintain an open environment that supports the free flow of information, >> research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business transformation. >> * Combine efforts to combat digital piracy with innovative approaches which >> provide creators and rights holders with incentives to create and >> disseminate works in a manner that is beneficial to creators, users and our >> economies as a whole. >> * Increase cross-border co-operation of governments and enforcement >> authorities in the areas of improving cyber-security, combating spam, as >> well as protecting privacy, consumers and minors. >> * Empowering consumers and users in online transactions and exchanges. >> >> Most (all?) of the things that you'd think developing countries would omit >> were accepted by 10 of them. Just sayin'. >> >> Cheers, >> Pranesh >> >> -- >> Pranesh Prakash >> Policy Director >> Centre for Internet and Society >> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: >> @pranesh_prakash >> -------------------+ >> Postgraduate Associate & 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: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 9 10:01:44 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:01:44 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <52555E01.1060904@cafonso.ca> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> <525468B9.1010002@cis-india.org> <52555E01.1060904@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Unrelated to the current thread on the status of these countries. A few months ago I had a meeting with a few people from the Japanese govt department responsible for Internet policy and we spoke about the Seoul cyberspace conference, its purpose and standing in the circus of international events, and evolution from the London and Budapest conferences. I was interested to know if it was taking on a more substantive position as an intergovernmental conference for Internet policy, and said that London and Budapest had been too typically northern dominated to have such global standing. The government person seemed pretty sure that Korea was aware of this, that they did want to raise the standing of the meeting and knew that to do that they had to invite (and make sure people would come) from developing country governments. I don't know how successful the Korean government's been in this, will be interesting to find out next week. Website claims 100+ participants from 90+ countries (1600+ in Baku and 128 counties, for what that's worth.) Adam On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Never, ever trust the IMF :) > > --c.a. > > On 10/08/2013 05:19 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> michael gurstein [2013-10-08 10:47]: >>> Pranesh, >>> >>> You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile, >>> Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey". >> >> The IMF lists 156[1] developing countries,[2] and 21 developed >> countries, and that's the list I used. As per the IMF, all 10 of the >> above are EMDEs. >> >> On the other hand, the World Bank classification[3] lists 139 as >> developing countries, and the above countries break-down as: >> >> Lower-middle-income economies: >> Egypt >> India >> Indonesia >> Senegal >> >> Upper-middle-income economies: >> Hungary >> Mexico >> Turkey >> >> High-income economies: >> Chile (OECD member) >> Latvia >> Poland (OECD member) >> >> The World Bank considers all low- and middle-income economies to be >> "developing". So that would cut down the list of 10 countries to 7. >> >> Cheers, >> Pranesh >> >> [1]: These are the 21 countries that are "Advanced Economies" (as >> opposed to "Emerging Market and Developing Economies") and are not >> considered developing countries by the IMF: Australia, Austria, Belgium, >> Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, >> Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, >> Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States. >> [2]: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/pdf/text.pdf >> [2]: >> http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups >> >>> By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list >>> (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient >>> number to be drawing any useful conclusions from. >> >> I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I don't mean to draw crude >> 'useful conclusions' as to what developing countries want and don't >> want. (I hardly want to draw conclusions, for that matter, useful or >> otherwise.) I'm just wondering aloud what practical differences would >> be between the IG policy stances of developing countries and developed >> countries. I'm looking for hypotheses, not conclusions. >> >> Would you hypothesise that developing countries would be more >> left-leaning than developed countries, and more prone to state >> intervention in lieu of market mechanisms? And if so, would any of them >> do so by actually negating all market-related terminology in the >> principles or by using caveats along the lines of "while we would >> ideally like to allow markets, in those cases where markets can't or >> don't deliver the universal access at the low costs that we desire, we >> as states will have to step in". If it is the latter, I wonder which >> developed country would oppose that language, since language similar to >> that already exists in the OECD+ Seoul Declaration of 2008. >> >> This is a thought experiment I'd like to garner responses from and >> learn. Because I really don't know much about this, and have done far >> less work around these issues than you (Michael), APC, IT for Change, >> LIRNEAsia, Consumers International, and so many other groups that work >> on these issues. >> >> Cheers, >> Pranesh >> From avri at ella.com Wed Oct 9 10:28:33 2013 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:28:33 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul Message-ID: "  Is multistakeholderism then a higher value than democracy? " I don't see how this could be.  I thought multistakeholderism was an expression of participatory democracy.  The value is democratic participation, democracy, the form is MSism. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lea at gp-digital.org Wed Oct 2 05:34:54 2013 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:34:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] FW: "Open Talks" with ITU Secretary General In-Reply-To: <7902C45E9F01E24084B54FC9698A95C1AA6A705B@TUCHM02.TUECSP.UNICC.ORG> References: <7902C45E9F01E24084B54FC9698A95C1AA6A705B@TUCHM02.TUECSP.UNICC.ORG> Message-ID: Dear all, For those of you interested in internet governance debates at the ITU level, I've recently been forwarded the below notification. Please note that these discussions will feed into ITU's CWG-Internet, which, as you know, remains otherwise closed to observers (following our Best Bits statement on this topic). One of the topics on the agenda at the CWG at the moment is the role of governments in IG. Have in mind that while the ITU Plenipotentiary takes place in November 2014, the documents that will inform its work are being drafted much earlier (through processes like this). Best, Lea From: Sareidaki, Despoina [mailto:despoina.sareidaki at itu.int] Sent: 30 September 2013 17:27 To: Sareidaki, Despoina Subject: "Open Talks" with ITU Secretary General Importance: High Dear Sir/Madam, We would like to bring to your notice a series of informal consultations, called "Open Talks", which were launched by the ITU Secretary General, Dr. Hamadoun Touré, on 24 September 2013, on Internet-related public policy issues, including the role of governments in the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. This series will consist of the following formats: 1. A World Café on October 8, 2013 at the ICT Discovery in ITU Headquarters from 18:15 - 20:15 2. A Town Hall meeting at IGF 2013, Bali, Indonesia (October 25, 2013 9:00-10:30) 3. Online - through the use of an interactive crowd-sourcing platform (expected launch date: October 8, 2013). The essence of the discussions during the informal consultations will inform the Secretary General's "Information Document", which will be submitted to the upcoming session of the ITU Council Working Group on International internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) taking place from 11 to 12 November 2013. You can find more information regarding this important initiative in the recent post of Dr. Hamadoun Touré on our ITU Blog: http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/launching-open-talks-with-itu-secretary-general/ . We invite you to participate in any of the components of these "Open Talks" and we are looking forward to your opinions. Further details on each of the three sessions will be published on the ITU Website shortly. Please also feel free to forward this information to your contacts. Kind regards, Despoina Sareidaki SG / SPM / CSD e-mail : Despoina.Sareidaki at itu.int Phone : +41 22 730 6818 International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Telephone : +41 22 730 5111 Telefax GR3 : +41 22 733 7256 GR4 : +41 22 730 6500 itumail at itu.int Web : www.itu.int -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 10:35:42 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:35:42 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <5255617C.3060402@itforchange.net> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> <52555DD2.6000004@cafonso.ca> <5255617C.3060402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <525569BE.8090408@cafonso.ca> Yes, right, recently added -- but 60% of its population is affected by poverty, as a study by a Chilean researcher shows (despite its relatively high so-called HDI). A situation similar to Mexico. So, in summa, being in OECD does not mean sitting in a higher development layer. --c.a. On 10/09/2013 11:00 AM, parminder wrote: > > Chile too now is an OECD member..... > > On the larger issue, I am rather surprised and disappointed at the > robust support from developing country people of the OECD 'global' > Internet policy making model - both the process and substance of which > being hugely problematic.... I dont have the time right now to engage > into a discussion, but could not resist expressing my strong feeling in > general about the issue... > > Democracy is in itself important, it is not a > if-we-disregard-the-process-issue thing..... And BTW, when it comes to > multistakeholderism, the same > lets-for-the-moment-disregard-the-process-issue proposition never seems > not to apply. Is multistakeholderism then a higher value than democracy? > > OECD is a centre price of 'global' Internet policy making today, which > is then exported through one to one or plurilateral deals to developing > countries... It is a fact that many developing countries fall prey to > this unprincipled approach on narrow short term self interest > consideration.... And playing developing countires against one another > through such short term deals is a major US/ OECD method of spreading > their regime globally. This is a major axis of global digital > domination.. Civil society interested in democratic values should simply > and roundly criticise such models of global policy making. That is the > only basic attitude that can be taken towards them. > > The developing countries who have signed some of the mentioned OECD > documents, are never a part of the core discussions, agenda framing and > final formulation -- and so to pass off their sign on as a measure of > they being a part of the process is a very undemocratic take..... Rest > later.... parmidner > > > On Wednesday 09 October 2013 07:14 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> To add some more "spice": both Chile and Mexico are still developing >> countries (may be listed as "emerging countries" in some circles), and >> while Chile is not in the OECD, Mexico is. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/08/2013 11:47 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Pranesh, >>> >>> You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile, >>> Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey". >>> >>> Of which three belong to the EU (Hungary, Latvia, Poland), one is a very >>> strong aspirant to the EU (Turkey), and two others are very strong aspirants >>> (based on income) to the OECD (Chile and Mexico)... >>> >>> By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list >>> (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient >>> number to be drawing any useful conclusions from. >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash >>> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:04 PM >>> To: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul >>> >>> A top note that the OECD principles are actually >>> OECD+Egypt+Business+Tech principles, which CISAC helped shape but didn't >>> sign on to. Rest inline: >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm [2013-10-08 00:04]: >>>> On 08/10/13 09:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>>>> Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: >>>>> apart from process related issues of lack of representation of >>>>> developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a >>>>> statement of principles that had developing world participation look >>>>> different? >>>> There is only one way to find out, and that is to deal with the >>>> process related issues. But for a rough idea, we can look at the >>>> Brazilian Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>> Notable additions compared to the OECD principles: >>>> >>>> * *Universality:* Internet access must be universal so that it becomes >>>> a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the >>>> formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society, for the >>>> benefit of all >>>> * *Standardization and interoperability:* The Internet must be based >>>> on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to >>>> participate in its development >>> On standards, the OECD principles (under "Promote the open, distributed and >>> interconnected nature of the Internet") states: >>> >>> "The Internet's openness also stems from globally accepted, consensus driven >>> technical standards that support global product markets and communications. >>> The roles, openness, and competencies of the global multi-stakeholder >>> institutions that govern standards for different layers of Internet >>> components should be recognised and their contribution should be sought on >>> the different technical elements of public policy objectives." >>> >>>> * *Neutrality of the network:* Filtering or traffic privileges must >>>> meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, >>>> commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of >>>> discrimination or preferential treatment >>> "Maintaining technology neutrality and appropriate quality for all Internet >>> services is also important to ensure an open and dynamic Internet >>> environment. Provision of open Internet access services is critical for the >>> Internet economy." >>> >>>> and notable omissions: >>>> >>>> * Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and >>> services; >>>> * Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; >>>> * Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; >>>> * Maximise individual empowerment; >>>> * Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. >>>> >>>> >>>> More could be written about this, but there is a very different >>>> emphasis with the OECD principles much more individualistic and biased >>>> towards trade, than the Brazilian principles. >>> OECD is primarily about economic/trade issues (though not solely about such >>> issues), so that bias is perhaps to be expected. In the 2008 Seoul >>> Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, there were 10 developing >>> countries (Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, >>> Senegal, Turkey) represented in the 39 individual countries that signed the >>> declaration. Sure, the developing countries were outnumbered 3:1, but they >>> still agreed to: >>> >>> * Ensure respect for intellectual property rights. >>> * Create a market-friendly environment for convergence that encourages >>> infrastructure investment, higher levels of connectivity and innovative >>> services and applications. >>> * Promote Internet-based innovation, competition, and user choice. >>> * Acting as a key driver for the creation of enterprises and communities and >>> stimulating closer global co-operation. >>> * Promote the secure and responsible use of the Internet that respects >>> international social and ethical norms and that increases transparency and >>> accountability. >>> * Establish a regulatory environment that assures a level playing field for >>> competition. >>> * Stimulate investment and competition in the development of high capacity >>> information and communication infrastructures and the delivery of >>> Internet-enabled services within and across borders. >>> * Maintain an open environment that supports the free flow of information, >>> research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business transformation. >>> * Combine efforts to combat digital piracy with innovative approaches which >>> provide creators and rights holders with incentives to create and >>> disseminate works in a manner that is beneficial to creators, users and our >>> economies as a whole. >>> * Increase cross-border co-operation of governments and enforcement >>> authorities in the areas of improving cyber-security, combating spam, as >>> well as protecting privacy, consumers and minors. >>> * Empowering consumers and users in online transactions and exchanges. >>> >>> Most (all?) of the things that you'd think developing countries would omit >>> were accepted by 10 of them. Just sayin'. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Pranesh >>> >>> -- >>> Pranesh Prakash >>> Policy Director >>> Centre for Internet and Society >>> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: >>> @pranesh_prakash >>> -------------------+ >>> Postgraduate Associate & Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society >>> Project, Yale Law School >>> T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org >>> >>> >>> > From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 10:57:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:27:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <525569BE.8090408@cafonso.ca> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> <52555DD2.6000004@cafonso.ca> <5255617C.3060402@itforchange.net> <525569BE.8090408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52556EC3.1020309@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 08:05 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, right, recently added -- but 60% of its population is affected by > poverty, as a study by a Chilean researcher shows (despite its > relatively high so-called HDI). A situation similar to Mexico. So, in > summa, being in OECD does not mean sitting in a higher development layer. > > --c.a. Yes, certainly, that is the rich countries' plan for further global domination and exploitation. Which can be called a new wave of neo colonialism, To break developing country solidarity - the way they would for instance break workers movements. Pull a Mexico and Chile into the OECD. Allure a Peru and Vietnam into the Trans Pacific Partnership.. .... That is simply diabolical and most dangerous to global justice.... But here we have people gladly supporting such processes of undemocratic rule over the world.... This is about people's rights, not just some narrowly defined rights frameworks which, not incidentally, happen to perfectly coincide with economic agendas of some powerful countries.... parminder > > On 10/09/2013 11:00 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Chile too now is an OECD member..... >> >> On the larger issue, I am rather surprised and disappointed at the >> robust support from developing country people of the OECD 'global' >> Internet policy making model - both the process and substance of which >> being hugely problematic.... I dont have the time right now to engage >> into a discussion, but could not resist expressing my strong feeling in >> general about the issue... >> >> Democracy is in itself important, it is not a >> if-we-disregard-the-process-issue thing..... And BTW, when it comes to >> multistakeholderism, the same >> lets-for-the-moment-disregard-the-process-issue proposition never seems >> not to apply. Is multistakeholderism then a higher value than democracy? >> >> OECD is a centre price of 'global' Internet policy making today, which >> is then exported through one to one or plurilateral deals to developing >> countries... It is a fact that many developing countries fall prey to >> this unprincipled approach on narrow short term self interest >> consideration.... And playing developing countires against one another >> through such short term deals is a major US/ OECD method of spreading >> their regime globally. This is a major axis of global digital >> domination.. Civil society interested in democratic values should simply >> and roundly criticise such models of global policy making. That is the >> only basic attitude that can be taken towards them. >> >> The developing countries who have signed some of the mentioned OECD >> documents, are never a part of the core discussions, agenda framing and >> final formulation -- and so to pass off their sign on as a measure of >> they being a part of the process is a very undemocratic take..... Rest >> later.... parmidner >> >> >> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 07:14 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> To add some more "spice": both Chile and Mexico are still developing >>> countries (may be listed as "emerging countries" in some circles), and >>> while Chile is not in the OECD, Mexico is. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 10/08/2013 11:47 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Pranesh, >>>> >>>> You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile, >>>> Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey". >>>> >>>> Of which three belong to the EU (Hungary, Latvia, Poland), one is a very >>>> strong aspirant to the EU (Turkey), and two others are very strong aspirants >>>> (based on income) to the OECD (Chile and Mexico)... >>>> >>>> By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list >>>> (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient >>>> number to be drawing any useful conclusions from. >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash >>>> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:04 PM >>>> To: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul >>>> >>>> A top note that the OECD principles are actually >>>> OECD+Egypt+Business+Tech principles, which CISAC helped shape but didn't >>>> sign on to. Rest inline: >>>> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm [2013-10-08 00:04]: >>>>> On 08/10/13 09:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>>>>> Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: >>>>>> apart from process related issues of lack of representation of >>>>>> developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a >>>>>> statement of principles that had developing world participation look >>>>>> different? >>>>> There is only one way to find out, and that is to deal with the >>>>> process related issues. But for a rough idea, we can look at the >>>>> Brazilian Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>> Notable additions compared to the OECD principles: >>>>> >>>>> * *Universality:* Internet access must be universal so that it becomes >>>>> a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the >>>>> formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society, for the >>>>> benefit of all >>>>> * *Standardization and interoperability:* The Internet must be based >>>>> on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to >>>>> participate in its development >>>> On standards, the OECD principles (under "Promote the open, distributed and >>>> interconnected nature of the Internet") states: >>>> >>>> "The Internet's openness also stems from globally accepted, consensus driven >>>> technical standards that support global product markets and communications. >>>> The roles, openness, and competencies of the global multi-stakeholder >>>> institutions that govern standards for different layers of Internet >>>> components should be recognised and their contribution should be sought on >>>> the different technical elements of public policy objectives." >>>> >>>>> * *Neutrality of the network:* Filtering or traffic privileges must >>>>> meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, >>>>> commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of >>>>> discrimination or preferential treatment >>>> "Maintaining technology neutrality and appropriate quality for all Internet >>>> services is also important to ensure an open and dynamic Internet >>>> environment. Provision of open Internet access services is critical for the >>>> Internet economy." >>>> >>>>> and notable omissions: >>>>> >>>>> * Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and >>>> services; >>>>> * Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; >>>>> * Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; >>>>> * Maximise individual empowerment; >>>>> * Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> More could be written about this, but there is a very different >>>>> emphasis with the OECD principles much more individualistic and biased >>>>> towards trade, than the Brazilian principles. >>>> OECD is primarily about economic/trade issues (though not solely about such >>>> issues), so that bias is perhaps to be expected. In the 2008 Seoul >>>> Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, there were 10 developing >>>> countries (Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, >>>> Senegal, Turkey) represented in the 39 individual countries that signed the >>>> declaration. Sure, the developing countries were outnumbered 3:1, but they >>>> still agreed to: >>>> >>>> * Ensure respect for intellectual property rights. >>>> * Create a market-friendly environment for convergence that encourages >>>> infrastructure investment, higher levels of connectivity and innovative >>>> services and applications. >>>> * Promote Internet-based innovation, competition, and user choice. >>>> * Acting as a key driver for the creation of enterprises and communities and >>>> stimulating closer global co-operation. >>>> * Promote the secure and responsible use of the Internet that respects >>>> international social and ethical norms and that increases transparency and >>>> accountability. >>>> * Establish a regulatory environment that assures a level playing field for >>>> competition. >>>> * Stimulate investment and competition in the development of high capacity >>>> information and communication infrastructures and the delivery of >>>> Internet-enabled services within and across borders. >>>> * Maintain an open environment that supports the free flow of information, >>>> research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business transformation. >>>> * Combine efforts to combat digital piracy with innovative approaches which >>>> provide creators and rights holders with incentives to create and >>>> disseminate works in a manner that is beneficial to creators, users and our >>>> economies as a whole. >>>> * Increase cross-border co-operation of governments and enforcement >>>> authorities in the areas of improving cyber-security, combating spam, as >>>> well as protecting privacy, consumers and minors. >>>> * Empowering consumers and users in online transactions and exchanges. >>>> >>>> Most (all?) of the things that you'd think developing countries would omit >>>> were accepted by 10 of them. Just sayin'. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Pranesh >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pranesh Prakash >>>> Policy Director >>>> Centre for Internet and Society >>>> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: >>>> @pranesh_prakash >>>> -------------------+ >>>> Postgraduate Associate & 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 11:05:13 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:05:13 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <5255617C.3060402@itforchange.net> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> <52555DD2.6000004@cafonso.ca> <5255617C.3060402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0d3201cec500$fc257c30$f4707490$@gmail.com> I think it is well to recognize that the OECD as an organization is primarily "research" focused. What that means is that a lot of their activities/outputs are framed as "value-free" research results. The problem with that however, is that the way in which the research is framed is almost inevitably directed towards achieving the rather specific policy outcome which is being pursued. The major challenge for CS in it's involvement with the OECD is that not only must it have the means to challenge the policy outcomes, but more importantly it needs to have the financial/intellectual resources to challenge the research that supports those outcomes upstream and even more important (and even more difficult) to challenge the way in which the research is being framed (conceptualization, terminology, methodology etc.) upstream which is generally at a very technical and "professional" level (think professional statisticians, gerontologists, macro-economists etc.etc. Since CS at the OECD has effectively no resources to support its activities (as compared to the Secretariat which has core government funding and the other "stakeholders" such as the corporate sector which has corporate funding the whole process is more or less completely skewed. (And of course, even with all the above, CS is at a further disadvantage given that the way the OECD defines its mandate is (more or less narrowly) related to "economic" development. Thus, as soon as CS starts moving into areas that make some governments uncomfortable (social servicing for social good rather than economic i.e. market development for example) that mandate is more or less immediately invoked and further discussion in those directions is curtailed. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 7:00 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul Chile too now is an OECD member..... On the larger issue, I am rather surprised and disappointed at the robust support from developing country people of the OECD 'global' Internet policy making model - both the process and substance of which being hugely problematic.... I dont have the time right now to engage into a discussion, but could not resist expressing my strong feeling in general about the issue... Democracy is in itself important, it is not a if-we-disregard-the-process-issue thing..... And BTW, when it comes to multistakeholderism, the same lets-for-the-moment-disregard-the-process-issue proposition never seems not to apply. Is multistakeholderism then a higher value than democracy? OECD is a centre price of 'global' Internet policy making today, which is then exported through one to one or plurilateral deals to developing countries... It is a fact that many developing countries fall prey to this unprincipled approach on narrow short term self interest consideration.... And playing developing countires against one another through such short term deals is a major US/ OECD method of spreading their regime globally. This is a major axis of global digital domination.. Civil society interested in democratic values should simply and roundly criticise such models of global policy making. That is the only basic attitude that can be taken towards them. The developing countries who have signed some of the mentioned OECD documents, are never a part of the core discussions, agenda framing and final formulation -- and so to pass off their sign on as a measure of they being a part of the process is a very undemocratic take..... Rest later.... parmidner On Wednesday 09 October 2013 07:14 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: To add some more "spice": both Chile and Mexico are still developing countries (may be listed as "emerging countries" in some circles), and while Chile is not in the OECD, Mexico is. --c.a. On 10/08/2013 11:47 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Pranesh, You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey". Of which three belong to the EU (Hungary, Latvia, Poland), one is a very strong aspirant to the EU (Turkey), and two others are very strong aspirants (based on income) to the OECD (Chile and Mexico)... By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient number to be drawing any useful conclusions from. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:04 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul A top note that the OECD principles are actually OECD+Egypt+Business+Tech principles, which CISAC helped shape but didn't sign on to. Rest inline: Jeremy Malcolm [2013-10-08 00:04]: On 08/10/13 09:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote: Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu: apart from process related issues of lack of representation of developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a statement of principles that had developing world participation look different? There is only one way to find out, and that is to deal with the process related issues. But for a rough idea, we can look at the Brazilian Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. Notable additions compared to the OECD principles: * *Universality:* Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society, for the benefit of all * *Standardization and interoperability:* The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to participate in its development On standards, the OECD principles (under "Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet") states: "The Internet's openness also stems from globally accepted, consensus driven technical standards that support global product markets and communications. The roles, openness, and competencies of the global multi-stakeholder institutions that govern standards for different layers of Internet components should be recognised and their contribution should be sought on the different technical elements of public policy objectives." * *Neutrality of the network:* Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment "Maintaining technology neutrality and appropriate quality for all Internet services is also important to ensure an open and dynamic Internet environment. Provision of open Internet access services is critical for the Internet economy." and notable omissions: * Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services; * Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; * Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; * Maximise individual empowerment; * Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. More could be written about this, but there is a very different emphasis with the OECD principles much more individualistic and biased towards trade, than the Brazilian principles. OECD is primarily about economic/trade issues (though not solely about such issues), so that bias is perhaps to be expected. In the 2008 Seoul Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, there were 10 developing countries (Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey) represented in the 39 individual countries that signed the declaration. Sure, the developing countries were outnumbered 3:1, but they still agreed to: * Ensure respect for intellectual property rights. * Create a market-friendly environment for convergence that encourages infrastructure investment, higher levels of connectivity and innovative services and applications. * Promote Internet-based innovation, competition, and user choice. * Acting as a key driver for the creation of enterprises and communities and stimulating closer global co-operation. * Promote the secure and responsible use of the Internet that respects international social and ethical norms and that increases transparency and accountability. * Establish a regulatory environment that assures a level playing field for competition. * Stimulate investment and competition in the development of high capacity information and communication infrastructures and the delivery of Internet-enabled services within and across borders. * Maintain an open environment that supports the free flow of information, research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business transformation. * Combine efforts to combat digital piracy with innovative approaches which provide creators and rights holders with incentives to create and disseminate works in a manner that is beneficial to creators, users and our economies as a whole. * Increase cross-border co-operation of governments and enforcement authorities in the areas of improving cyber-security, combating spam, as well as protecting privacy, consumers and minors. * Empowering consumers and users in online transactions and exchanges. Most (all?) of the things that you'd think developing countries would omit were accepted by 10 of them. Just sayin'. Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------+ Postgraduate Associate & 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: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 17:46:09 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:46:09 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Message-ID: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Oct 9 17:59:03 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:59:03 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red interrogation mark on our visualization map? http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be connected. On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we > can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going > through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies within the > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma > agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and > with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in > Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados > no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no > Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Oct 9 18:02:35 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:02:35 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> Hi, Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? Wow! avri On 9 Oct 2013, at 17:46, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we > can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going > through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies within the > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma > agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and > with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in > Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados > no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no > Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 18:07:10 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:07:10 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> EXCELLENT! CONGRATULATIONS TO BRAZIL FOR STEPPING UP AND SHOWING THE NECESSARY LEADERSHIP! NOW WE MUST SET TO WORK TO HELP DESIGN THE WORLD/INTERNET WE WANT! M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 2:46 PM To: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; NCSG List; BestBits List Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35 107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Agência Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Agência Brasil From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 18:16:24 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:16:24 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] video: Fadi talks about his meeting with Dilma Message-ID: <5255D5B8.80909@cafonso.ca> This interview with the president of Icann was recorded minutes after his meeting between President Rousseff today: http://blog.planalto.gov.br/brasil-vai-sediar-encontro-mundial-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-2014/ In English of course, with subtitles in Brazilian Portuguese. fraternal regards --c.a. From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Oct 9 18:22:26 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:22:26 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: H. Touré, among other, shall be unhappy... Interesting times... and a LOT of work in the way forward.. On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > EXCELLENT! > > CONGRATULATIONS TO BRAZIL FOR STEPPING UP AND SHOWING THE NECESSARY > LEADERSHIP! > > NOW WE MUST SET TO WORK TO HELP DESIGN THE WORLD/INTERNET WE WANT! > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 2:46 PM > To: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; NCSG List; BestBits > List > Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on > Internet governance in 2014 > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35 > 107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), > Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from > different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this > issue, > after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General > Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the > Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, > and > expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the > fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been > broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his > proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, > Petrobras > and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to > elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get > together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. > The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage > the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights > Framework > for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in > the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin > this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the > Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United > Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, > who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to > participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the > management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend > the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must > work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that > changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the > participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must > not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the > free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the > president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias > para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da > Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla > em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir > líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da > 68ª > Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo > ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita > coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam > com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à > internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua > proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta > que > elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos > possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos > sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras > decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base > os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa > por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações > Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos > técnicos, > que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o > presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar > do > debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da > internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem > também > participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual > precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma > concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma > multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a > internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, > políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O > ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em > abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Wed Oct 9 18:25:05 2013 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:25:05 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> Message-ID: <44421AC9-ADAD-4E9D-AF95-308D9C6DA390@me.com> It's looks like for us at Brazil, wow! Dilma new positioning, that was 180º turn, is fantastic, but the "worms" still in the government like Paulo Bernardo Minister and in the Congress like Deputy Eduardo Cunha that was defending the interest of the telecommunications companies since ever. The incredible sequence of good news from our President, it's a motivation for our (Brazilian) optimism, but as activist we need to care about what Dilma say and what the rest of the government actors understand. Otherwise the support of international community was and will continue to be very important on the construction of new and important scenario. Remember that the last IGF I spoke on behalf of some Brazilian Organizations about the threats on Marco Civil and the Internet at Brazil ( http://movimentomega.org.br/2012/11/marco-civil-framework-for-internet-rights-the-multistakeholder-legislative-model-seriously-threatened/ ). So I really wanna to thank all involved on this changes, and really hope to speak about our progressive positioning on Internet Governance. Thank you! _ João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 09/10/2013, às 19:02, Avri Doria escreveu: > > Hi, > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > Wow! > > avri > > > >> On 9 Oct 2013, at 17:46, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> [sorry for possible duplicate posts] >> >> Dear people >> >> Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the >> official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's >> President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. >> >> The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 >> >> Brazil will host world event on Internet governance >> >> From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 >> >> Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to >> Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in >> English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global >> leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. >> >> According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this >> issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th >> UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world >> heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with >> great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the >> world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the >> Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was >> the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. >> >> Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of >> Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, >> Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the >> president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we >> can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are >> equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on >> how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of >> the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going >> through the National Congress. >> >> Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo >> Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes >> in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should >> begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of >> the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the >> government. >> >> "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active >> participation by governments, their respective agencies within the >> United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the >> technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. >> For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need >> to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out >> the management of the Internet infrastructure. >> >> The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also >> attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which >> we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma >> agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and >> with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said >> that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to >> interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the >> suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in >> Rio de Janeiro. >> >> Source : Agência Brazil >> >> -------- original in pt-br ------------- >> >> O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças >> necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o >> presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números >> (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff >> concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados >> no tema. >> >> De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta >> questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da >> 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O >> mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, >> com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo >> mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que >> temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma >> foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. >> >> Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de >> autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a >> Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta >> que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que >> todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em >> que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as >> futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem >> ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no >> Congresso Nacional. >> >> Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo >> Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre >> mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem >> começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da >> internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. >> >> “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação >> ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das >> Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, >> dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu >> Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais >> precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a >> gestão da infraestrutura da internet. >> >> O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem >> também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família >> com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a >> presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem >> ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores >> que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que >> interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre >> circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta >> é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. >> >> fonte: Agência Brasil >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 3 01:18:22 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:18:22 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marilia, Thanks for this report. Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad law.) Adam On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Sorry for any duplication of this message. > > To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy > > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ > > Best wishes > > Marília > > -- > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 9 18:30:08 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:30:08 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process assessment. 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, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red interrogation mark on our visualization map? http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be connected. On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Agência Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Agência Brasil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 18:31:40 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:31:40 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] video: Fadi talks about his meeting with Dilma II Message-ID: <5255D94C.8070105@cafonso.ca> I meant "his meeting *with* President Rousseff", of course... :) --c.a. ============================ This interview with the president of Icann was recorded minutes after his meeting between President Rousseff today: http://blog.planalto.gov.br/brasil-vai-sediar-encontro-mundial-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-2014/ In English of course, with subtitles in Brazilian Portuguese. fraternal regards --c.a. From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Oct 9 18:34:43 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:34:43 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting > moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference > those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms > of prior phases. > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President > will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the > new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process > assessment. > > 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, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > NCSG List > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world > event on Internet governance in 2014 > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red > interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 > process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 > meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event > after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if > both processes will be connected. > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> [sorry for possible duplicate posts] >> >> Dear people >> >> Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the >> official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's >> President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. >> >> The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 >> >> Brazil will host world event on Internet governance >> >> From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 >> >> Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to >> Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in >> English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global >> leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. >> >> According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this >> issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th >> UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world >> heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with >> great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the >> world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the >> Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was >> the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. >> >> Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of >> Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, >> Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the >> president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we >> can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are >> equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on >> how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of >> the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going >> through the National Congress. >> >> Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo >> Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes >> in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should >> begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of >> the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the >> government. >> >> "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active >> participation by governments, their respective agencies within the >> United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the >> technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. >> For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need >> to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out >> the management of the Internet infrastructure. >> >> The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also >> attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which >> we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma >> agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and >> with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said >> that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to >> interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the >> suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in >> Rio de Janeiro. >> >> Source : Agência Brazil >> >> -------- original in pt-br ------------- >> >> O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças >> necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o >> presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números >> (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff >> concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados >> no tema. >> >> De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta >> questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da >> 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O >> mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, >> com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo >> mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que >> temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma >> foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. >> >> Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de >> autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a >> Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta >> que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que >> todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em >> que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as >> futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem >> ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no >> Congresso Nacional. >> >> Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo >> Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre >> mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem >> começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da >> internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. >> >> “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação >> ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das >> Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, >> dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu >> Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais >> precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a >> gestão da infraestrutura da internet. >> >> O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem >> também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família >> com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a >> presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem >> ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores >> que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que >> interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre >> circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta >> é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. >> >> fonte: Agência Brasil >> > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Wed Oct 9 18:43:08 2013 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:43:08 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4846587C-5851-467E-8293-6AD7879ECE66@me.com> If I understood that the same game will be played on domestic arena with old agendas of the our government (executive and the congress) and will really be interesting. So I really thinking about your insight Lee, that is something we really need to observe _ João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 09/10/2013, às 19:30, Lee W McKnight escreveu: > > but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 19:21:49 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:21:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Keep cool [was: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014] In-Reply-To: <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> Message-ID: At 00:02 10/10/2013, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, >Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN >has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and >unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of >the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? keep cool. More importantly, "The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work". It is the statUS-quo pseudoMS family vs. the UN WSIS (i.e. Montevideo-signatorees to counter the Dubai-signatorees). One could call this the Snowden devil trap :-) Telcos on an equal footing now with Govs, ICANN, ISOC and RIRs. Multilateral was the word, wasn't it? Will Anatel host the conference? jfc From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 19:40:31 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:40:31 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <422D0C8F-F156-45AD-87AD-DB5027C37FCA@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> <422D0C8F-F156-45AD-87AD-DB5027C37FCA@arin.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 20:59:36 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:59:36 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> <422D0C8F-F156-45AD-87AD-DB5027C37FCA@arin.net> Message-ID: At 02:06 10/10/2013, John Curran wrote: >I thought you were concerned about the authenticity of the call for >accelerating the >globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, and I was only responding >to such - >my error. In any case, we are already seeing evidence of such >acceleration, which >in and of itself makes the point. No concern about the authenticity of the current, swift and brillant NTIA long planned strategic move in order to counter the Dubai-signatories with the Montevideo-signatories + Barazilian Summit. My concern is where an "acceleration of a statUS-quo" may lead us to except to a self-organizing criticality. I will come back on this, but the result - as far as CS is concerned - is a probable split of the civil society, the emergence of the digital society and the creation of a multilateral NRObis. I have nothing about "fostering competition". jfc From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 21:33:31 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:33:31 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello, maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF alike. while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such summit? Best, Rafik 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. >> >> Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting >> moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference >> those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms >> of prior phases. >> >> UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President >> will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the >> new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. >> >> My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process >> assessment. >> >> 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, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM >> *To:* Carlos A. Afonso >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >> NCSG List >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world >> event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red >> interrogation mark on our visualization map? >> >> http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html >> >> I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 >> process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 >> meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event >> after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if >> both processes will be connected. >> On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >>> [sorry for possible duplicate posts] >>> >>> Dear people >>> >>> Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the >>> official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's >>> President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. >>> >>> The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 >>> >>> Brazil will host world event on Internet governance >>> >>> From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 >>> >>> Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to >>> Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in >>> English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global >>> leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. >>> >>> According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this >>> issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th >>> UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world >>> heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with >>> great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the >>> world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the >>> Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was >>> the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. >>> >>> Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of >>> Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, >>> Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the >>> president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we >>> can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are >>> equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on >>> how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of >>> the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going >>> through the National Congress. >>> >>> Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo >>> Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes >>> in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should >>> begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of >>> the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the >>> government. >>> >>> "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active >>> participation by governments, their respective agencies within the >>> United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the >>> technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. >>> For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need >>> to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out >>> the management of the Internet infrastructure. >>> >>> The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also >>> attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which >>> we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma >>> agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and >>> with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said >>> that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to >>> interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the >>> suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in >>> Rio de Janeiro. >>> >>> Source : Agência Brazil >>> >>> -------- original in pt-br ------------- >>> >>> O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças >>> necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o >>> presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números >>> (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff >>> concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados >>> no tema. >>> >>> De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta >>> questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da >>> 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O >>> mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, >>> com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo >>> mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que >>> temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma >>> foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. >>> >>> Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de >>> autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a >>> Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta >>> que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que >>> todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em >>> que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as >>> futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem >>> ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no >>> Congresso Nacional. >>> >>> Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo >>> Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre >>> mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem >>> começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da >>> internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. >>> >>> “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação >>> ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das >>> Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, >>> dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu >>> Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais >>> precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a >>> gestão da infraestrutura da internet. >>> >>> O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem >>> também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família >>> com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a >>> presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem >>> ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores >>> que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que >>> interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre >>> circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta >>> é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. >>> >>> fonte: Agência Brasil >>> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 9 22:30:49 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:30:49 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 2 more cents re how high the summit: Given the call for tech community/cs leaders to engage with heads of state; while everyone maintains a claim to multi-stakeholder (and/or multilateral) democratic/participatory legitimacy, even as mega-telco CEOS jet in from around the world...this should all be more than interesting. If the meeting involves President Rousseff and other heads of state, by definition this is not a run of the mill thing. Or IG forum. But rather than WEF, what it might most closely resemble....is an ICANN meeting, where lots of groups come together, lots of things are happening, but when one door closes only GAC members are in the room. In this case, the photo-ops of heads of state + ICANN, ARIN, LACNIC, etc + telco CEOs will send its own message of love peace and harmony among nation-states, global Internet, and industry. What's not to like? : ) If enough heads of state want in on the photo ops and policy discussions, then think G20 or even G30; with the accompanying cs + industry sideshows typical of G7/G8 events. While other portions of event likely will be pretty wide open and bottom-up participatory, a la ICANN biz as usual. And yes for Brazilian domestic actors, this is also a great chance to cement gains and lock the President and Congress into cs-progressive positions, since she wouldn't wish for anything like the civil society protests happening during this event, which from FIFA and President Rousseff's perspective distracted from the football last summer. Bottom line: Congrats, breakthrough has already happened, the whole event will not very likely do much more than bless the ball already rolling. Lee ________________________________ From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 9:33 PM To: Joana Varon Cc: Lee W McKnight; Carlos A. Afonso; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Hello, maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF alike. while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such summit? Best, Rafik 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process assessment. 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, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red interrogation mark on our visualization map? http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be connected. On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Agência Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Agência Brasil -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 23:50:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:50:57 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> , <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting that into play But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr (non) rules and regs. In fact, I think she is inviting all of us to figure out how to participate effectively (and that is among the most interesting elements of the message) to make some serious decisions about what our collective future might look like AND in doing this she has completely up set the status quoist, corporatist, hemegon's applecarts about using the Internet (and its NSA/GCHQ/CSEC enforcers) to give us the future that they want. So bravo Dilma (and Fadi) and even if it is only for a short while (before we all get overcome again by the Walking Dead) let's do some collective dreaming about how to manage the Internet to build the world that we want not the one that they wanted us to have (in their interests M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 7:31 PM To: Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon Cc: Carlos A. Afonso; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 2 more cents re how high the summit: Given the call for tech community/cs leaders to engage with heads of state; while everyone maintains a claim to multi-stakeholder (and/or multilateral) democratic/participatory legitimacy, even as mega-telco CEOS jet in from around the world...this should all be more than interesting. If the meeting involves President Rousseff and other heads of state, by definition this is not a run of the mill thing. Or IG forum. But rather than WEF, what it might most closely resemble....is an ICANN meeting, where lots of groups come together, lots of things are happening, but when one door closes only GAC members are in the room. In this case, the photo-ops of heads of state + ICANN, ARIN, LACNIC, etc + telco CEOs will send its own message of love peace and harmony among nation-states, global Internet, and industry. What's not to like? : ) If enough heads of state want in on the photo ops and policy discussions, then think G20 or even G30; with the accompanying cs + industry sideshows typical of G7/G8 events. While other portions of event likely will be pretty wide open and bottom-up participatory, a la ICANN biz as usual. And yes for Brazilian domestic actors, this is also a great chance to cement gains and lock the President and Congress into cs-progressive positions, since she wouldn't wish for anything like the civil society protests happening during this event, which from FIFA and President Rousseff's perspective distracted from the football last summer. Bottom line: Congrats, breakthrough has already happened, the whole event will not very likely do much more than bless the ball already rolling. Lee _____ From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 9:33 PM To: Joana Varon Cc: Lee W McKnight; Carlos A. Afonso; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Hello, maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF alike. while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such summit? Best, Rafik 2013/10/10 Joana Varon Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process assessment. 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, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red interrogation mark on our visualization map? http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be connected. On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35 107 &sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Agência Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Agência Brasil -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Oct 2 16:40:02 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:40:02 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC Message-ID: Sorry for any duplication of this message. To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ Best wishes Marília -- *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: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 9 23:57:20 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:57:20 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> Message-ID: <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can > participate on an equal footing... It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 10 01:41:46 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:41:46 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0E2CEE52-B48F-4AFE-A26C-D0F46C5ABBD7@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Carlos, Thank you. Has President Rousseff's office released a report of the meeting, any statement? And pointers to the most current version of Marco Civil, Portuguese and English (if available) would be great to see. Best, Adam On Oct 10, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we > can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going > through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies within the > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma > agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and > with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in > Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados > no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no > Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Oct 10 01:47:35 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:17:35 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would be a good thing :) What do others think? Best, Anja On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can > participate on an equal footing... > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in > proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a > secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements > that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation ( > http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was > because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the > writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now > officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the > Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion > forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community > (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they > can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, > this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and > ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves > anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. > > -- > > *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: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 03:13:57 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:13:57 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Designing the world/Internet we want (was Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host...) In-Reply-To: <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131010091357.4fbde7f7@quill> Michael Gurstein wrote: > CONGRATULATIONS TO BRAZIL FOR STEPPING UP AND SHOWING THE NECESSARY > LEADERSHIP! > > NOW WE MUST SET TO WORK TO HELP DESIGN THE WORLD/INTERNET WE WANT! I strongly agree. The initiative of Brazil and ICANN presents a tremendous opportunity, which will be wasted if we (in the sense of “people who care about human rights and other social justice concerns”, i.e. not limited to just the civil society stakeholder category) don't get to work to initiate such a design process, so that the event in Brazil will have a worthwhile set of input documents. (Of course it is possible for that opportunity to get wasted for reasons other than the lack of a suitable design process, but even then initiating a design process for “the world/Internet we want” will not be a wasted effort. If we get inspired by the hope that this event will be worthwhile, and on the basis of this inspiration create a good design process, something very worthwhile will have been created quite independently of whether the event in Brazil actually fulfills the high expectations.) The first step is to design a suitable design process. This design process needs to be highly inclusive. In particular it must be possible to participate effectively for people who are neither techies nor fluent in the language that is typically used in Internet governance discourses (English). The design process also needs to be technically realistic. At all steps at the design process it must be clear (at least to people with in-depth technical understanding of the topic under consideration) what the suggestions under consideration means in precise technical terms, and that it is possible to implement them, etc. Further, this design process needs to contain suitable mechanisms for dealing with conflicts of interest. For some conflicts, it will be possible after discussion and reflection to find consensus solutions that fully satisfy the interests of all concerned stakeholders. There will however also be other conflicts for which no consensus solution will be found, and that reality also needs to be addressed somehow, for example by working out a set of possible options for national parliaments to choose from. Greetings, Norbert From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 10 04:23:00 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:23:00 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Message-ID: I agree with Adam that cross-posting multiple lists gets too messy, but then responding on just one makes the conversation more fragmentary and leaves out folks who are not multiply subscribed, so….FWIW below what I said on Governance ------- Hi On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It's not clear we should assume at the outset that 'external' oversight is the end point in mind. It could well be more along the lines of multilateralizing the USG role under the multistakeholder Affirmation of Commitments, which has been an ongoing low-level discussion in IGF and elsewhere for some time now. Expanding internal oversight and buy in would seem institutionally a lot easier to organize. In any event, the one thing I think we can say for certain is that this is not Fadi floating out there all on his own as a free radical. There's active coordination going on behind the scenes among key governments, industry groups, *I orgs…But putting him out front as the face of the coalition is a good move. >> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards >> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can >> participate on an equal footing... > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) I'm not sure how low we need to hang our heads. The caucus came out for globalizing the USG role in some manner in 2005, before WSIS PrepCom 3. Since then that question's certainly been a leitmotif of discussions here and elsewhere, but imagining precisely what the institutional form and a broadly consensual path to change might look like has been no easier for us than for anyone else. But it's not like nobody has tried…CIRP, expanded AoC, etc. > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. Why so glum, Jeremy? Remember, the conversation is starting in Bali. The MAG decided in February to invite Brazil to formulate a proposal for discussion in the first "Focus Session" (with apologies to Matt, I hate this term and preferred Main Session) on Day 1, "Building Bridges - The Role of Governments in Multistakeholder Cooperation." At that point the thinking was an evolution from the aborted Opinion at the WTPF, but it'll obviously be different and less ITU-oriented now. That discussion will undoubtedly feed into the FS on "Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation" and the multiple workshops on Enhanced Cooperation, etc. So I suspect people will talking about this issue all week in various ways, starting with Best Bits :-). And then the conversation will move on from there... Remember also that there's broad agreement in the MAG and beyond that from Bali forward, the IGF needs to be more "outcome oriented." FCs and workshops alike are supposed to come to some identifiable conclusions that can be reported out, whether it's "messages," "sense of the room," or just some people felt this while others felt that. That's obviously short of the WGIG/Tunis Agenda mandate for Recommendations, but this is an evolutionary process, the next IGF is in Brazil, and Brazil will undoubtedly play a role in the agenda setting for that meeting. So why don't we see where things go before declaring the IGF irrelevant? Given the changed landscape, it's not entirely impossible anymore to at least imagine multistakeholder working groups under the IGF umbrella that generate outputs that feed into FCs or discussions elsewhere, or some other variations….So the "mere discussion forum" could become nested in a broader nexus in a way that's more widely regarded as useful and worth supporting. We'll just have to see... > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and are forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. But the encouragement to Brazil to take a lead on the discussion in Bali was pushed by ISOC's VP for Policy. And the Montevideo Statement from the I-orgs explicitly calls for " accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." So while there's obviously not great enthusiasm for an intergovernmental UN-based model with all that entails, I wouldn't just assume that the "old guard" has been neutralized or bypassed; I think they're in the middle of it. You may be constructing a narrative based on a priori assumptions and inadequate information here. 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: From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Oct 10 05:02:47 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:02:47 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: <5255617C.3060402@itforchange.net> References: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> <00E90B31-AE8D-4D9B-9F86-26E5428C054C@ciroap.org> <52535E35.1030000@cis-india.org> <52538466.2090701@ciroap.org> <52539225.5000300@cis-india.org> <06e901cec435$567b3930$0371ab90$@gmail.com> <52555DD2.6000004@cafonso.ca> <5255617C.3060402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52566D37.1070107@cis-india.org> parminder [2013-10-09 10:00]: > On the larger issue, I am rather surprised and disappointed at the > robust support from developing country people of the OECD 'global' > Internet policy making model - both the process and substance of which > being hugely problematic.... Parminder, I have to remind you as I did in a thread from last year on the IGC list on globalisation of ICANN: I (and people in general) do not only ask questions rhetorically or as an instrument of persuasive practice. Usually I ask questions merely with the ambition of receiving answers. I am asking the questions that I am not with the intent to express "robust support" of the OECD principles. I am asking the questions that I am solely to find out what a more globally representative set of Internet policymaking principles might look like. I am merely trying to find out what the OECD principles would gain from being more inclusive. I have heard many people criticise the OECD process since it is not inclusive and is not global and is discriminatory. I have heard people criticise the substance of the principles, especially with relation to copyright matters. I have not so far heard people say what harms have been caused to the substance due to the faulty process. In short: please do not be disappointed. > I dont have the time right now to engage > into a discussion, but could not resist expressing my strong feeling in > general about the issue... That's a pity. Please do respond to this thread in greater detail when you find the time. I'd love to hear your views on this. > Democracy is in itself important, it is not a > if-we-disregard-the-process-issue thing..... Why not? If democracy is to mean "one person, one vote" (with no disqualification on the basis of education, religion, caste, gender, race, disability, etc., except for age), then that process, important as it may be, can definitely be separated from substantive principles that are often embodied in bills of rights. (Not to mention the need for counter-majoritarian protections for minorities, whom democratic processes bereft of principles can trample.) > And BTW, when it comes to > multistakeholderism, the same > lets-for-the-moment-disregard-the-process-issue proposition never seems > not to apply. Is multistakeholderism then a higher value than democracy? Who doesn't question multistakeholder processes? I question multistakeholder processes all the time, and have in conversations with you as well. I talk especially about the the legitimacy of civil society organizations and business. To whom are we in civil society organizations accountable? Who do we represent? After all, we come not as 'experts', but as 'representatives of civil society'; when we are appointed to working groups, etc., we aren't appointed as individual experts, but as representatives of one stakeholder or another. How are stakeholders to be decided? As for far-more-well-known critics of multistakeholderism-as-process: Milton Mueller devotes two entire pages (p.264-266) of Chapter 11 ("Ideologies and Visions") of his book Networks and States to attacking the ism that is multistakeholderism. Other self-professed cyber-libertarians, such as Adam Thierer too attack multistakeholderism vehemently as being bereft of substance. They argue that just because you have multistakeholder processes doesn't mean you'll get something that enables freedom of speech. Milton Mueller questions how the idea is fundamentally different from 'pluralism' in the democratic policy-making process. In a recent piece Jeremy Malcolm says that technical bodies have failed at multistakeholderism (taking W3C as the prime motivator). But aren't businesses a stakeholder, but just not the ones we necessarily agree with at each turn? And the entire reason to go hankering after 'principles' is to say that there are substantive goals like freedom of association, conscience, expression, right to equality, privacy, etc., and not just procedural goals like multistakeholderism. -- 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 05:03:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:03:48 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Monitoring Your Every Move In-Reply-To: <969E5168-B9BE-4702-B30E-9BA66EF673F5@warpspeed.com> References: <969E5168-B9BE-4702-B30E-9BA66EF673F5@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <112201cec597$a96b7b10$fc427130$@gmail.com> The activities of the private sector shouldn't be ignored in any discussion/policy development concerning privacy/surveillance. M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:51 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Monitoring Your Every Move October 9, 2013 Monitoring Your Every Move By THE EDITORIAL BOARD You may have even less privacy than you thought. Most Internet users know that Web sites and advertisers monitor what they do online and use that information to pitch products and services. What's not as well known is that these companies can track individuals as they move between devices like personal computers, cellphones and tablets. This type of "cross-device" tracking raises significant privacy concerns because most users are simply unaware that it is taking place. Internet companies capable of such monitoring do it through various means, including by figuring out if different devices are using the same Internet connection and are visiting the same Web sites and mobile apps. If, for instance, you have used your home computer to research a Hawaiian vacation, travel companies can show you ads for flights to Honolulu on apps you use on your cellphone. Internet businesses argue that such targeting benefits everybody: advertisers get access to customers who are more likely to buy their products while individuals receive offers for stuff they are interested in. (The New York Times's mobile apps include software from advertising networks that gather nonpersonal information about how readers use the newspaper.) But there's also a big privacy issue. Many Americans worry that the Internet has already extracted more personal information about them they would like. Now comes the news that advertisers can follow people from work computer to tablet computer to cellphone even though those devices are not connected to one another. New technology also allows advertisers access to mobile phones without the "cookies" they need to access personal computers. This makes it harder than ever for users to escape the gaze of private companies. By connecting information from these devices, database companies that collect information can know a lot more about individuals than previously thought possible, including, for instance, their physical location and the identity of family members, friends and colleagues. The use of this information to target advertising might amount to a mere annoyance to most people. But such information could also end up in detailed individual profiles that could be obtained by government agencies or purchased by employers or banks to evaluate candidates for jobs or loans. At some point, the makers of computers, phones and software may devise new tools that allow people to protect themselves from sophisticated forms of tracking. But they will always be one step behind firms that are in the business of collecting information. The best solution is for lawmakers to pass legislation that sets clear rules that would regulate and limit how businesses collect personal information, what they can use it for and how long they keep it. The rules, which could be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, should also give consumers an easy way to review files about themselves or simply choose not to have the information collected. At the moment, the advantage on the Internet lies increasingly with the data miners and the advertisers, not the consumer. Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: From mshears at cdt.org Thu Oct 10 05:28:13 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:28:13 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should start this process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up. On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be > enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start > working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea > but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we > like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions > in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least > from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN > would be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" > wrote: > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? >> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards >> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can >> participate on an equal footing... > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have > been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not > made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the > number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced > cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I > accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of > course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while > now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its > larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally > anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to > have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to > fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful > implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is > now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) > having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves > anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and > irrelevant. > > -- > > *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. > -- 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: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 10 04:49:15 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:49:15 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 05:50 10/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >In fact, I think she is inviting all of us "us"? So far, I understand that Telcos are. I would be surprised they bluntly hear "us" after years we tried to by-pass their ITU. jfc From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 04:21:55 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:21:55 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 References: <7FA65363-ABAF-4182-824E-05DEA01A6AB1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <71D6FA62-07FC-4C58-A546-9946EE7BE738@gmail.com> I agree with Adam that cross-posting multiple lists gets too messy, but then responding on just one makes the conversation more fragmentary and leaves out folks who are not multiply subscribed, so….FWIW below what I said on Governance ------- Hi On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It's not clear we should assume at the outset that 'external' oversight is the end point in mind. It could well be more along the lines of multilateralizing the USG role under the multistakeholder Affirmation of Commitments, which has been an ongoing low-level discussion in IGF and elsewhere for some time now. Expanding internal oversight and buy in would seem institutionally a lot easier to organize. In any event, the one thing I think we can say for certain is that this is not Fadi floating out there all on his own as a free radical. There's active coordination going on behind the scenes among key governments, industry groups, *I orgs…But putting him out front as the face of the coalition is a good move. >> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards >> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can >> participate on an equal footing... > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) I'm not sure how low we need to hang our heads. The caucus came out for globalizing the USG role in some manner in 2005, before WSIS PrepCom 3. Since then that question's certainly been a leitmotif of discussions here and elsewhere, but imagining precisely what the institutional form and a broadly consensual path to change might look like has been no easier for us than for anyone else. But it's not like nobody has tried…CIRP, expanded AoC, etc. > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. Why so glum, Jeremy? Remember, the conversation is starting in Bali. The MAG decided in February to invite Brazil to formulate a proposal for discussion in the first "Focus Session" (with apologies to Matt, I hate this term and preferred Main Session) on Day 1, "Building Bridges - The Role of Governments in Multistakeholder Cooperation." At that point the thinking was an evolution from the aborted Opinion at the WTPF, but it'll obviously be different and less ITU-oriented now. That discussion will undoubtedly feed into the FS on "Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation" and the multiple workshops on Enhanced Cooperation, etc. So I suspect people will talking about this issue all week in various ways, starting with Best Bits :-). And then the conversation will move on from there... Remember also that there's broad agreement in the MAG and beyond that from Bali forward, the IGF needs to be more "outcome oriented." FCs and workshops alike are supposed to come to some identifiable conclusions that can be reported out, whether it's "messages," "sense of the room," or just some people felt this while others felt that. That's obviously short of the WGIG/Tunis Agenda mandate for Recommendations, but this is an evolutionary process, the next IGF is in Brazil, and Brazil will undoubtedly play a role in the agenda setting for that meeting. So why don't we see where things go before declaring the IGF irrelevant? Given the changed landscape, it's not entirely impossible anymore to at least imagine multistakeholder working groups under the IGF umbrella that generate outputs that feed into FCs or discussions elsewhere, or some other variations….So the "mere discussion forum" could become nested in a broader nexus in a way that's more widely regarded as useful and worth supporting. We'll just have to see... > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and are forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. But the encouragement to Brazil to take a lead on the discussion in Bali was pushed by ISOC's VP for Policy. And the Montevideo Statement from the I-orgs explicitly calls for " accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." So while there's obviously not great enthusiasm for an intergovernmental UN-based model with all that entails, I wouldn't just assume that the "old guard" has been neutralized or bypassed; I think they're in the middle of it. You may be constructing a narrative based on a priori assumptions and inadequate information here. 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: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 3 09:46:35 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:46:35 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <524D753B.2090004@cafonso.ca> Hi Adam & all, OK, some comments on this. The "BRICs cable" project contemplates high-capacity links to the USA and Europe, of course. Politically, with the current situation, the way this will be done is open to question regarding partnerships, cost sharing, priorities and so on. In no way this would be just a firewalled point-to-point cable Brazil-China with stop-overs in SA & India. This proposal of course is a joint venture involving private sector and the BRICs' countries, and details of this are not yet available as far as I know. There are budget constraints in all countries involved (or at least three of them...), so this is not so simple or so immediate. Also, Brazil is contemplating or actively involved in the deployment of other new direct links (Africa, Europe, encircling South America etc). As in all other new international links Brazil is considering or participating, the whole idea is to guarantee most direct routes to all regions in the planet, so that traffic does not need to go through the USA or Amsterdam or etc whatever its origin/destination. Most large economies with massive use of the Net (we are about to reach 95 million users) have the same problem and are considering or practicing a similar policy. The "Snowden revelations" are just helping to accelerate the process. No one here would be naïve to think that BR-USA links should be disregarded. To the contrary, we need planning to optimize them, and if other links come online of course there will be more capacity available for traffic from/to USA. On 10/03/2013 02:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > Thanks for this report. > > Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern > about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the > idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach > you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this > mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the > cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at > the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect > we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad > law.) > > Adam > > > > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Sorry for any duplication of this message. >> >> To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the >> summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a >> new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized >> by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV >> Rio de Janeiro. >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy >> >> >> I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ >> >> Best wishes >> >> Marília >> >> -- 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ 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 > From kichango at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 06:20:34 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:20:34 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <71D6FA62-07FC-4C58-A546-9946EE7BE738@gmail.com> References: <7FA65363-ABAF-4182-824E-05DEA01A6AB1@gmail.com> <71D6FA62-07FC-4C58-A546-9946EE7BE738@gmail.com> Message-ID: And why not start the discussion about CS agenda for the proposed summit here online ahead of Bali? I'd find it more inclusive to start setting the CS framework here (if only in broad lines) and make sure the discussions in Bali feed into that and are reported on here. After all it's cheaper to get internet connection than to fly to Bali. I would also hope that remote participation facilities will be robust enough to allow a smooth and comprehensive engagement with those not on the scenes. mawaki ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mawaki Chango, PhD DIGILEXIS Consulting, Founder and CEO ICT Policy & Regulations | KM & Organizational Processes | ICT4D | Digital Records & Identity www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com @digilexis @mawakiDIGILEXIS +225 4448 7764 On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:21 AM, William Drake wrote: > I agree with Adam that cross-posting multiple lists gets too messy, but > then responding on just one makes the conversation more fragmentary and > leaves out folks who are not multiply subscribed, so….FWIW below what I > said on Governance > > ------- > > Hi > > On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > It's not clear we should assume at the outset that 'external' oversight is > the end point in mind. It could well be more along the lines of > multilateralizing the USG role under the multistakeholder Affirmation of > Commitments, which has been an ongoing low-level discussion in IGF and > elsewhere for some time now. Expanding internal oversight and buy in would > seem institutionally a lot easier to organize. > > In any event, the one thing I think we can say for certain is that this is > not Fadi floating out there all on his own as a free radical. There's > active coordination going on behind the scenes among key governments, > industry groups, *I orgs…But putting him out front as the face of the > coalition is a good move. > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can > participate on an equal footing... > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in > proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a > secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements > that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation ( > http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was > because the statement was simply too long.) > > > I'm not sure how low we need to hang our heads. The caucus came out for > globalizing the USG role in some manner in 2005, before WSIS PrepCom 3. > Since then that question's certainly been a leitmotif of discussions here > and elsewhere, but imagining precisely what the institutional form and a > broadly consensual path to change might look like has been no easier for us > than for anyone else. But it's not like nobody has tried…CIRP, expanded > AoC, etc. > > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the > writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now > officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the > Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion > forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. > > > Why so glum, Jeremy? Remember, the conversation is starting in Bali. The > MAG decided in February to invite Brazil to formulate a proposal for > discussion in the first "Focus Session" (with apologies to Matt, I hate > this term and preferred Main Session) on Day 1, "Building Bridges - The > Role of Governments in Multistakeholder Cooperation." At that point the > thinking was an evolution from the aborted Opinion at the WTPF, but it'll > obviously be different and less ITU-oriented now. That discussion will > undoubtedly feed into the FS on "Principles > of Multistakeholder Cooperation" and the multiple workshops on Enhanced > Cooperation, etc. So I suspect people will talking about this issue all > week in various ways, starting with Best Bits :-). And then the > conversation will move on from there... > > Remember also that there's broad agreement in the MAG and beyond that from > Bali forward, the IGF needs to be more "outcome oriented." FCs and > workshops alike are supposed to come to some identifiable conclusions that > can be reported out, whether it's "messages," "sense of the room," or just > some people felt this while others felt that. That's obviously short of > the WGIG/Tunis Agenda mandate for Recommendations, but this is an > evolutionary process, the next IGF is in Brazil, and Brazil will > undoubtedly play a role in the agenda setting for that meeting. So why > don't we see where things go before declaring the IGF irrelevant? Given > the changed landscape, it's not entirely impossible anymore to at least > imagine multistakeholder working groups under the IGF umbrella that > generate outputs that feed into FCs or discussions elsewhere, or some other > variations….So the "mere discussion forum" could become nested in a broader > nexus in a way that's more widely regarded as useful and worth supporting. > We'll just have to see... > > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community > (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they > can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, > this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and > ICANN!) having lost patience and are forging ahead regardless, this leaves > anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. > > > But the encouragement to Brazil to take a lead on the discussion in Bali > was pushed by ISOC's VP for Policy. And the Montevideo Statement from the > I-orgs explicitly calls for " accelerating the globalization > of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all > stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." > So while there's obviously not great enthusiasm for an intergovernmental > UN-based model with all that entails, I wouldn't just assume that the "old > guard" has been neutralized or bypassed; I think they're in the middle of > it. You may be constructing a narrative based on a priori assumptions and > inadequate information here. > > 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: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 07:48:51 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:48:51 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have strong representation in this process. fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/09/2013 10:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello, > > maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement > emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about > the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of > governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those > familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF > alike. > while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of > conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such > summit? > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > > > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. > Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new > game which will reference those already played but need not be > limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the > President will work around existing UN schedules to extent > feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is > probably not what was just agreed. > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process > assessment. > > 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, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; NCSG List > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host > world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the > red interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the > WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? > During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil > wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt > envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be > connected. > > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some > editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff > and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > >From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the > necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the > Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its > acronym in > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to > meet global > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's > leadership on this > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening > of the 68th > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. > "The world > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep > conviction, with > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many > people around the > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we > have with the > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by > Dilma was > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the > communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very > president, > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to > ask the > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to > ensure that we > can all get together around a new model of governance in > which all are > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future > decisions on > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the > principles of > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which > is going > through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications > Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions > about changes > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the > arrangements should > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new > governing body of > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, > not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that > requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies > within the > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil > society, the > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé > defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and > industrialists need > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and > carry out > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies > must also > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family > with which > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, > President Dilma > agreed that changes in network governance must occur > multilaterally and > with the participation of all actors who engage the > internet, and said > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious > interests to > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister > said that the > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in > April 2014 in > Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar > com o > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de > Nomes e Números > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta > Dilma Rousseff > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores > interessados > no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança > brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na > abertura da > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos > Estados Unidos. “O > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda > convicção, > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas > pessoas, em todo > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido > quebrada que > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o > discurso de Dilma > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a > comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria > presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar > à presidenta > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a > assegurar que > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de > governança, em > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann > disse que as > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a > internet devem > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que > tramita no > Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das > Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os > debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as > articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo > órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só > do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige > participação > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no > âmbito das > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da > sociedade civil, > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet > funcionar”, defendeu > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e > industriais > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito > e fazem a > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de > telecomunicações devem > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante > da família > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo > Bernardo, a > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da > rede devem > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos > os atores > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode > “permitir que > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na > livre > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão > da presidenta > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > From Andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 10 08:02:01 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:02:01 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] RE:Bali meeting - IGF plus Message-ID: Matthew Shears and I have prepared a paper on how to strengthen the IGF process. I'm not sure if this come up in our Bali meeting, or how, but we're circulating it in advance. Please feel free to comment before hand 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF plus final October 10 final.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 25226 bytes Desc: IGF plus final October 10 final.docx URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 08:03:48 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:03:48 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I will suggest that #Brasil2014 be added to Best Bits agenda for Bali. While CS watches the space with caution, it is better to be proactive. Discussions can begin NOW on how we intend to mainstream issues around openness, human rights, affodability and access to the summit. Incidentally #Brasil2014 is also the tag for the FIFA World Soccer Cup that will be there, for which I have made plans to be present! Color me cautious and excited. N On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We > need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, > and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming > suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have strong > representation in this process. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/09/2013 10:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hello, > > > > maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement > > emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about > > the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of > > governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those > > familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF > > alike. > > while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of > > conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such > > summit? > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > > > > > > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > > wrote: > > > > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this > happen. > > > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. > > Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new > > game which will reference those already played but need not be > > limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. > > > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the > > President will work around existing UN schedules to extent > > feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is > > probably not what was just agreed. > > > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process > > assessment. > > > > 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, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > < > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > ; NCSG List > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host > > world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the > > red interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the > > WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? > > During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil > > wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt > > envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be > > connected. > > > > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > > wrote: > > > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > > > Dear people > > > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some > > editing) of the > > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff > > and ICANN's > > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > > > >From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the > > necessary changes to > > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the > > Internet > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its > > acronym in > > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to > > meet global > > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's > > leadership on this > > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening > > of the 68th > > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. > > "The world > > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep > > conviction, with > > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many > > people around the > > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we > > have with the > > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by > > Dilma was > > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the > > communication of > > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very > > president, > > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to > > ask the > > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to > > ensure that we > > can all get together around a new model of governance in > > which all are > > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future > > decisions on > > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the > > principles of > > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which > > is going > > through the National Congress. > > > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications > > Minister Paulo > > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions > > about changes > > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the > > arrangements should > > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new > > governing body of > > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, > > not just the > > government. > > > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that > > requires active > > participation by governments, their respective agencies > > within the > > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil > > society, the > > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé > > defended. > > For the president of the corporation, academics and > > industrialists need > > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and > > carry out > > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies > > must also > > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family > > with which > > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, > > President Dilma > > agreed that changes in network governance must occur > > multilaterally and > > with the participation of all actors who engage the > > internet, and said > > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious > > interests to > > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister > > said that the > > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in > > April 2014 in > > Rio de Janeiro. > > > > Source : Agência Brazil > > > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as > mudanças > > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar > > com o > > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de > > Nomes e Números > > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta > > Dilma Rousseff > > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores > > interessados > > no tema. > > > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança > > brasileira nesta > > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na > > abertura da > > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos > > Estados Unidos. “O > > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda > > convicção, > > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas > > pessoas, em todo > > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido > > quebrada que > > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o > > discurso de Dilma > > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a > > comunicação de > > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria > > presidenta, a > > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar > > à presidenta > > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a > > assegurar que > > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de > > governança, em > > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann > > disse que as > > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a > > internet devem > > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que > > tramita no > > Congresso Nacional. > > > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das > > Comunicações, Paulo > > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os > > debates sobre > > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as > > articulações devem > > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo > > órgão gestor da > > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só > > do governo. > > > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige > > participação > > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no > > âmbito das > > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da > > sociedade civil, > > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet > > funcionar”, defendeu > > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e > > industriais > > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito > > e fazem a > > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de > > telecomunicações devem > > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante > > da família > > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo > > Bernardo, a > > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da > > rede devem > > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos > > os atores > > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode > > “permitir que > > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na > > livre > > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão > > da presidenta > > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 08:17:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:17:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RE:Bali meeting - IGF plus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131010141744.533e51fb@quill> Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Matthew Shears and I have prepared a paper on how to strengthen the > IGF process. I'm not sure if this come up in our Bali meeting, or > how, but we're circulating it in advance. Please feel free to > comment before hand May I ask whether you have funding for this work? If so, from what kind of source? Greetings, Norbert From Andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 10 08:22:02 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:22:02 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] RE:Bali meeting - IGF plus In-Reply-To: <20131010141744.533e51fb@quill> References: <20131010141744.533e51fb@quill> Message-ID: What? We wrote it between us, in our time, as a contribution to the Best Bits debate on internet governance. No-one got paid anything by anyone. But please, make me an offer I can't refuse 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 -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: 10 October 2013 13:18 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: matthew shears; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] RE:Bali meeting - IGF plus Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Matthew Shears and I have prepared a paper on how to strengthen the > IGF process. I'm not sure if this come up in our Bali meeting, or > how, but we're circulating it in advance. Please feel free to > comment before hand May I ask whether you have funding for this work? If so, from what kind of source? Greetings, Norbert From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 10 08:38:05 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:38:05 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] RE:Bali meeting - IGF plus In-Reply-To: References: <20131010141744.533e51fb@quill> Message-ID: On 10/10/2013, at 8:22 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > What? We wrote it between us, in our time, as a contribution to the Best Bits debate on internet governance. No-one got paid anything by anyone. > > But please, make me an offer I can't refuse I suspect Norbert's question, although rather easily misinterpreted as an interrogation about your funding sources, was actually about whether there is funding out there to support Internet governance research, particularly by those who aren't already affiliated to a funded institution. If I'm right, then I can say that there is indeed a lot of current interest in this, and that there will be discussions about it in Bali. I'll write more 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 08:49:36 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:49:36 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RE:Bali meeting - IGF plus In-Reply-To: References: <20131010141744.533e51fb@quill> Message-ID: <20131010144936.298ebc2c@quill> Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > But please, make me an offer I can't refuse Alas I'm in need of a good source of funding for public interest oriented work myself. Greetings, Norbert From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 08:59:19 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:59:19 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RE:Bali meeting - IGF plus In-Reply-To: References: <20131010141744.533e51fb@quill> Message-ID: <20131010145919.4684a684@quill> Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:38:05 +0800 schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > On 10/10/2013, at 8:22 PM, Andrew Puddephatt > wrote: > > > What? We wrote it between us, in our time, as a contribution to > > the Best Bits debate on internet governance. No-one got paid > > anything by anyone. > > > > But please, make me an offer I can't refuse > > > I suspect Norbert's question, although rather easily misinterpreted > as an interrogation about your funding sources, was actually about > whether there is funding out there to support Internet governance > research, particularly by those who aren't already affiliated to a > funded institution. If I'm right, then I can say that there is > indeed a lot of current interest in this, and that there will be > discussions about it in Bali. I'll write more off-list. To be totally honest, my question (poorly worded as it may have been) probably emerged from as a mix of both interests - on one hand curiosity about how Andrew's work is funded --together with the implied belief that transparency on such matters is important-- and on the other hand interest in learning about potential funding sources for work that I'm interested in undertaking. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 09:10:50 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:10:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) --c.a. On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just >> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting >> that into play… > > > I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > >> >> >> >> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite >> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my >> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the >> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) rules >> and regs. > > > > It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it > is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are > spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from > the T&A folks, not Brasilia. > > From valeriab at apc.org Wed Oct 2 10:05:06 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:05:06 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session In-Reply-To: <8EA84850-3108-4E17-897E-1C402FF26763@uzh.ch> References: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org> <8EA84850-3108-4E17-897E-1C402FF26763@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <8412B7D1-7595-484C-B27B-AD6F043C5004@apc.org> Dear all, A brief response from Bytes for All, Pakistan and APC on the intervention by Pakistan at the HRC24. http://www.apc.org/en/node/18573 Best, Valeria On 20/09/2013, at 14:07, William Drake wrote: > Hi Robert > > You didn't see the text circulated here the other day proposing an > intergovernmental declaration on harmony? > > Apparently it was quickly withdrawn (there may be an interesting > story here) and there will now be a meeting summary doc instead. > > Bill > > On Sep 20, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Robert Guerra > wrote: > >> Interesting Indonesia joined pack of like minded countries. Will be >> interesting if they try to advance a document or statement at the >> high level meeting in Bali. >> >> Robert >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On 2013-09-20, at 11:39 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Sharing this information with you all. >>> >>> Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Uganda, >>> Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and China, highlighted >>> at HRC24 the need to protect the right to privacy as an essential >>> element of free expression, citing the International Covenant on >>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and La Rue’s report. The >>> statement explicitly criticized the role of major international >>> internet and telecommunication technology companies in violating >>> privacy. It also explicitly made the links between the allegations >>> of mass state surveillance and the need for reforming global >>> internet governance. To quote the statement directly: >>> >>> "The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum >>> established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on Information >>> Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to deliver the desired >>> results. A strategic rethinking of the global internet governance >>> mechanism is inevitable. Further development of an international >>> mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS >>> Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward. However we will need >>> to be sincere in our efforts to ensure a transparent, free, fair >>> and respectful international intergovernmental mechanism of >>> internet governance and one that also ensures the right to privacy." >>> >>> The full intervention by Pakistan is available at http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Valeria >> > From valeriab at apc.org Thu Oct 10 09:11:47 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:11:47 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? Valeria On 10/10/2013, at 0:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to > be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we > start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the > idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would > we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our > discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an > agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at > least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of > ICANN would be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of >>> ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of >>> ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/ >>> management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? >> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN >> towards >> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all >> governments) can >> participate on an equal footing... > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been > in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made > much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number > of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation > (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this > was because the statement was simply too long.) > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of > course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, > but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger > role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally > anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have > a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a > larger role has moved elsewhere. > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical > community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation > of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly > token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost > patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing > against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. > > -- > 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: From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Thu Oct 10 09:13:20 2013 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:13:20 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Neelie Kroes: "Internet Governance: I want your views!" Message-ID: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D0896005932786284@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> [ Apologies if you receive duplicates. Please do share this message widely ] Dear colleagues, dear friends, I would like to share with you the recent blog post by Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the European Commission and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, on Internet Governance. The blog post is accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/internet-governance-i-want-your-views and also reproduced below for ease of reference. Vice-President Kroes highlights some of her key thoughts on the main challenges for the governance of the Internet and calls upon everyone to share their views on how the Internet should be governed and what Europe's role should be. Such online engagement will take place via the Digital Agenda website at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/content/europe-and-internet-global-context. Importantly, as part of this online engagement a discussion paper was produced and put online at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/131007%20public%20questions%20formatted.pdf. I would encourage all of you to express your views. +++ Internet Governance: I want your views! Published by Neelie KROES on Wednesday, 09/10/2013 As digital agenda commissioner I have long fought hard to keep the Internet driving positive change - helping Europe's economy and society. And now we are asking for your views on internet governance. I have fought especially hard for an open Internet. As a network of networks, no one person or country owns the Internet, but we do need a clear set of rules that everybody needs to play by. I have defended such rules at international conferences on the Internet, most recently at the Internet Governance Forum in Baku - and, in particular, resisted attempts by others to push for significant increases to the scope of International Telecoms Regulations at the recent WCIT meeting in Dubai. But since then a lot of things have happened. We have heard about massive surveillance operations by secret services, within Europe as well as the US. Of course we are extremely concerned by what that means for personal data protection. But this also has deep implications for the governance of the Internet. It is clearly influencing how some international partners are thinking. And it is even more important now that we agree on common principles for Internet governance, and how decisions are made in all Internet-related matters. This autumn will be crucial in many ways. In Europe, I am proposing ambitious measures to bring down barriers within our connected continent. That's a priority for me, and a priority for our economic future, which I hope EU leaders will take seriously at their forthcoming summit. But, at the same time as we bring those barriers down, I want to avoid new ones going up. Later this month, Internet world leaders are meeting at the Internet Governance Forum in Bali. I am sorry that, for the first time, I cannot be there in person myself. But I would like to contribute, both to make clear how closely and seriously we are watching this debate, and to stress the importance of having a clear and robust framework for Internet Governance and policy-making as soon as possible. As it stands today, the conclusions of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) are the only international-level political agreement on Internet governance; and they are the subject of several consultations. Particularly important among those consultations are the discussions in the "WSIS+10" High-Level Event, and the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation; I hope many of you will be contributing. The Internet is increasingly the forum for so much of our lives; from transacting through commerce or banking; to interacting through social networks; to communicating with governments or pushing for democratic change. It's clear to me that the Internet is a European strategic domain - and, although the internet is a different kind of place to the "real world", our stance towards it should be underpinned by just the same values, priorities and interests as everything else. This digital age needs a new social contract. Decisions that affect the Internet shouldn't be taken just by politicians, companies or technicians alone, without any reference to common principles. So I believe that the new social contract must be based on sound principles. My starting point here are those in the Compact I first floated a couple of years ago; like that the Internet should remain open, unified, pro-democratic, enabling trust and confidence, and based on transparent, multi-stakeholder governance. Recent news shows just how fragile this balance of values can be; important efforts to tackle terrorist threats cannot be at the expense of fundamental freedoms. But we also must have a clearer view of what we mean when we speak of "multi-stakeholder processes". I worry that without a clear definition, everyone will claim that their decision processes are inclusive and transparent, when in practice they are not - as was shown recently, when the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN pressed on regardless - in spite of the EU's legitimate concerns on new domain names. As you may have seen, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff recently set out her strong belief in multi-lateral cooperation as a basis for Internet governance. I am looking forward to seeing further details - but in principle I very much support that line. Plus, our future Global Internet Policy Observatory will help give a more balanced view of how the Internet should be governed. And I know many of these issues will also be discussed in Bali. But I want to take this seriously. These are my thoughts: but I want yours too; your ideas on how the Internet should be governed and what Europe's role should be. For the next four weeks, please share your views on the dedicated web page. +++ Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2965 bytes Desc: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 1.jpg URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 10 09:23:38 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:23:38 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see if we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond just an expression of support, but including some more substantive output that can be tabled at the IGF. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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: -------------- 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: From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 10 09:32:27 2013 From: avri at acm.org (avri) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:32:27 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Message-ID: Hi, I think this is a good approach. And I agree that expressing appreciation of the direction they seem to be leading towards, combined with a CS proposal would be a good outcome of the BestBits meeting. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Valeria Betancourt Date: 10/10/2013 09:11 (GMT-05:00) To: Anja Kovacs Cc: Jeremy Malcolm ,"bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade.  Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali?   Valeria  On 10/10/2013, at 0:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would be a good thing :) What do others think? Best, Anja On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can participate on an equal footing... It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo.  (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future.  Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda.  Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a  larger role has moved elsewhere. It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.  Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual.  With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. -- 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: From rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Oct 10 09:36:26 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:36:26 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1824C934-CB29-4406-9533-ED0B38012E40@privaterra.org> Any sense of the possible date(s) in April 2015 when the meeting/conference/ ministerial might take place? Robert On 2013-10-10, at 9:32 AM, avri wrote: > Hi, > > I think this is a good approach. And I agree that expressing appreciation of the direction they seem to be leading towards, combined with a CS proposal would be a good outcome of the BestBits meeting. > > > avri > > Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Valeria Betancourt > Date: 10/10/2013 09:11 (GMT-05:00) > To: Anja Kovacs > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm ,"bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? > > Valeria > > On 10/10/2013, at 0:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. >> >> And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would be a good thing :) >> >> What do others think? >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >> On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: >>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? >>> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >>> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards >>> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can >>> participate on an equal footing... >> >> It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) >> >> This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. >> >> It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. >> >> -- >> 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: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 10 09:40:09 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:40:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I think the Brazil initiative gives us a useful focus and we should definitely make time to discuss it on the fist morning. In general, though we have suggested agenda I think we should be open to hacking the event and letting participants drive it the way they want if we can go for concrete positive outcomes. 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: 10 October 2013 14:24 To: Valeria Betancourt Cc: Anja Kovacs; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt > wrote: I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re Chehade. Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting in Bali? +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see if we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond just an expression of support, but including some more substantive output that can be tabled at the IGF. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 10:34:58 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:34:58 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> <5256732D.5040005@cdt.org> Message-ID: Hi , I insist about caution even if it is not popular :) I understand that some see a window of opportunity and possibility for CS to outline an agenda and influence a summit (which remains to be defined). I want CS to be more proactive and set the tone and I found strange that we are issuing statement to support other statements or speeches, I would prefer that we support more concrete actions and real commitments instead than just plain speeches. and in particular for Fadi, I would like to ask him to apply what he is preaching about multistakeholderism and respect process and stakeholders within ICANN . Best Regards, Rafik 2013/10/10 matthew shears > I agree that we need to approach this with some caution. That said, we > should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for CS to > communicate its expectations of such events early and we should start this > process in Bali. Less convinced about the need (or desirability) of > writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - we can always note our > appreciation in the agenda we work up. > > > On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be > enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous > opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start > working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea but > also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we like to see > such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions in Bali as a > basis from which to start drafting such an agenda. > > And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least > from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN would > be a good thing :) > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > >> On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: >> >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? >> >> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards >> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can >> participate on an equal footing... >> >> >> It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in >> proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a >> secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements >> that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation ( >> http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was >> because the statement was simply too long.) >> >> This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the >> writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now >> officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in >> multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the >> Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion >> forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. >> >> It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical >> community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. >> Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced >> cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. >> With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and forging ahead regardless, >> this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and >> irrelevant. >> >> -- >> >> *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. >> > > -- > > 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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 10:39:49 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:39:49 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, I understand your excitement and pride as Brazilian but as Tunisian I am more cautious with what my gov can claim :) (I would instead wait till marco civil to be voted to celebrate for example but yes I am not familiar with Brazilian internal politics) not sure what is your take regarding IGF, ywa you are talking about interesting process , but we dont have such process now and it looks more as an interpretation and wish than something concrete. are you looking to replace IGF by a summit yet to be defined? Best, Rafik 2013/10/10 Carlos A. Afonso > I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We > need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, > and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming > suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have strong > representation in this process. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/09/2013 10:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hello, > > > > maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement > > emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about > > the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of > > governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those > > familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF > > alike. > > while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of > > conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such > > summit? > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > > > > > > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > > wrote: > > > > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this > happen. > > > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. > > Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new > > game which will reference those already played but need not be > > limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. > > > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the > > President will work around existing UN schedules to extent > > feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is > > probably not what was just agreed. > > > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process > > assessment. > > > > 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, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > < > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > ; NCSG List > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host > > world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the > > red interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the > > WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? > > During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil > > wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt > > envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be > > connected. > > > > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > > wrote: > > > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > > > Dear people > > > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some > > editing) of the > > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff > > and ICANN's > > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > > > >From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the > > necessary changes to > > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the > > Internet > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its > > acronym in > > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to > > meet global > > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's > > leadership on this > > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening > > of the 68th > > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. > > "The world > > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep > > conviction, with > > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many > > people around the > > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we > > have with the > > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by > > Dilma was > > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the > > communication of > > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very > > president, > > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to > > ask the > > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to > > ensure that we > > can all get together around a new model of governance in > > which all are > > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future > > decisions on > > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the > > principles of > > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which > > is going > > through the National Congress. > > > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications > > Minister Paulo > > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions > > about changes > > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the > > arrangements should > > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new > > governing body of > > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, > > not just the > > government. > > > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that > > requires active > > participation by governments, their respective agencies > > within the > > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil > > society, the > > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé > > defended. > > For the president of the corporation, academics and > > industrialists need > > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and > > carry out > > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies > > must also > > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family > > with which > > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, > > President Dilma > > agreed that changes in network governance must occur > > multilaterally and > > with the participation of all actors who engage the > > internet, and said > > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious > > interests to > > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister > > said that the > > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in > > April 2014 in > > Rio de Janeiro. > > > > Source : Agência Brazil > > > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as > mudanças > > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar > > com o > > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de > > Nomes e Números > > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta > > Dilma Rousseff > > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores > > interessados > > no tema. > > > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança > > brasileira nesta > > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na > > abertura da > > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos > > Estados Unidos. “O > > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda > > convicção, > > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas > > pessoas, em todo > > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido > > quebrada que > > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o > > discurso de Dilma > > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a > > comunicação de > > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria > > presidenta, a > > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar > > à presidenta > > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a > > assegurar que > > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de > > governança, em > > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann > > disse que as > > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a > > internet devem > > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que > > tramita no > > Congresso Nacional. > > > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das > > Comunicações, Paulo > > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os > > debates sobre > > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as > > articulações devem > > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo > > órgão gestor da > > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só > > do governo. > > > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige > > participação > > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no > > âmbito das > > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da > > sociedade civil, > > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet > > funcionar”, defendeu > > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e > > industriais > > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito > > e fazem a > > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de > > telecomunicações devem > > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante > > da família > > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo > > Bernardo, a > > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da > > rede devem > > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos > > os atores > > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode > > “permitir que > > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na > > livre > > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão > > da presidenta > > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 10 10:41:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:11:08 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <525625A0.8030103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5256BC84.40809@itforchange.net> I am great votary of both (1) civil society jumping headlong into all *important* *global* IG processes, whether *UN or not*, and (2) fluid agendas ... However cant but note a point. I had earlier repeatedly called for us to look into OCED's CICCP related *global* Internet policy development processes and its outcomes, and the process and outcomes of the Seoul cyber conference (or the London and Budapest series).... In fact I kept insisting that we do so .... But with a very lukewarm response if any..... How do we square such cascading support for taking charge of the Brazil's new proposed (hardly born yet) process with this earlier attitude.... Why is that all processes where developing countries have important, or even significant, role require urgent examination and intervention, but those led by developed countries perhaps considered, what is it, friendly, safe ..... ?? Now, before anyone gets offended.... let me say, no personal offence intended, mine is (and is always) a political statement in a political space.... And I cant but do what I consider is my job as political civil society, with strong leanings towards Southern and other marginalised interests. Thanks for understanding, parminder On Thursday 10 October 2013 07:10 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > I think the Brazil initiative gives us a useful focus and we should > definitely make time to discuss it on the fist morning. > > In general, though we have suggested agenda I think we should be open > to hacking the event and letting participants drive it the way they > want if we can go for concrete positive outcomes. > > *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:* 10 October 2013 14:24 > *To:* Valeria Betancourt > *Cc:* Anja Kovacs; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will > host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > On 10/10/2013, at 9:11 PM, Valeria Betancourt > wrote: > > > > I agree with Anja on her proposal. Taking the opportunity not only for > expressing our support but for outlining a civil society agenda for > the summit would be an strategic move. + 1 as well on proposal re > Chehade. Do you think it would be one of the outcomes of our meeting > in Bali? > > +1 from me - and the steering committee is discussing too. Let's see > if we can't shuffle the day 1 schedule to include this, going beyond > just an expression of support, but including some more substantive > output that can be tabled at the IGF. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > 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: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Oct 10 10:44:51 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:14:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Point taken, Mawaki. We can very well already start sharing ideas online. One of the reasons why I proposed we use the conversations in Bali as a starting point is because I had some quite specific possible agenda items in mind myself. Why not use this opportunity to also start thinking/advocating in a more concerted fashion about the role of civil society in multistakeholder Internet governance and what is required for it to fulfil that role? I find it fascinating how much time we spend on discussing the role of governments, but how little conversation we have about our own role. If this conference is going to be about a more democratic multistakeholder system for Internet governance, I think it is quite important that we also put on the table proposals regarding more formal and systematic involvement of civil society in Internet governance across the board, and the rather thorny issue of how that is going to be made possible in practice (including where the funding is going to come from). Some of these issues will be implicit in our conversations in Bali, and hence I thought those might be an easy starting point for this part of the debate, but there is of course no reason why we shouldn't start doing so already online. Some of my own thoughts on the difficult position civil society finds itself in at the moment can be found here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/ Best regards, Anja On 10 October 2013 18:40, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) > > --c.a. > > On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't > just > >> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and > putting > >> that into play… > > > > > > I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > > > >> > >> > >> > >> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to > invite > >> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. > Rather my > >> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, > the > >> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade > and > >> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) > rules > >> and regs. > > > > > > > > It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it > > is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are > > spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from > > the T&A folks, not Brasilia. > > > > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 12:01:20 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:01:20 -0400 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Anja Kovacs 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. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 13:49:01 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:49:01 -0700 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <025001ced661$837185f0$8a5491d0$@gmail.com> +1 M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:30 AM 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 +1 On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Anja Kovacs 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. 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: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Oct 31 14:34:16 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 02:34:16 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates Message-ID: 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DIGE-gs(1).doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Oct 31 15:42:15 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 06:42:15 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 16:09:21 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:09:21 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02e801ced675$1d03f780$570be680$@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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 31 22:22:26 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:22:26 +0800 Subject: Secret vs CS list (was Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all) In-Reply-To: <20131031124242.39590328723@a2knetwork.org> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> <313F92DA-46A3-4891-B7EF-62A5DBA24F72@ella.com> <20131031073201.GB3571@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <021F97EF-C97D-46C0-8310-12B66D8E61E2@uzh.ch> <20131031124242.39590328723@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: <52731062.5010508@ciroap.org> On 31/10/13 20:34, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > And by the way, I am a CS actor with a single hat, I did was in Baku > (in a side event) and felt afterwards very strange to discover > months later the existence of Bestbit (meeting and lists) of which I > was not invited and not aware of. > So I do not like neither secret processes and I wish Bestbit would > have been informed in IGF main list so I could > have participated from the beginning. It was... sorry that you missed it! We can aim to make our outreach more effective... -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 31 22:22:40 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:22:40 +0800 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52731070.2010006@ciroap.org> On 31/10/13 22:37, John Curran wrote: > As long as the folks on a closed CS-oriented mailing list remember to > come back with a proposal to the community at large, it's not much > different than if it were developed as a strawman position via a > flurry of private emails among interested folks. Yes, and this is exactly the approach that, I think, everybody here who has been proposing a closed working group list has. Since feelings are strong on both sides of this issue, we should all try to be flexible. I, myself, am in the openness "camp", but am willing to be flexible on this. Accordingly Deborah has been compiling a list of options and we expect to post those soon with a recommendation about an acceptable compromise. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 31 22:33:15 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:33:15 +0800 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <527312EB.70608@ciroap.org> On 01/11/13 00:44, 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 agree. However the current draft procedures on the process wiki at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures allow a narrow exception to this, reflecting our existing practices as they have emerged - but it is in italics, indicating that it remains especially debatable: /In exceptional cases where a large proportion of participants are physically present or otherwise actively express their views about a statement, and it appears that it enjoys full consensus of those participants, they may resolve that it be issued as a statement “of the Best Bits coalition”./ (Disclaimer again: not all parts of the Best Bits website are working again, following the server crash. Thanks for your patience.) -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 31 12:15:57 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:15:57 +0000 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 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 Gene Kimmelman Sent: 31 October 2013 16:01 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 +1 On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Anja Kovacs > 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. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Thu Oct 31 12:21:00 2013 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:21:00 +0000 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 On 31 October 2013 16:15, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > +1**** > > ** ** > > *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 *Gene Kimmelman > *Sent:* 31 October 2013 16:01 > *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**** > > ** ** > > +1**** > > ** ** > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Anja Kovacs > 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. > 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 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: From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu Thu Oct 31 12:32:23 2013 From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:32:23 -0200 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: 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 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. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Thu Oct 31 12:39:04 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:39:04 +0300 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 31 October 2013 18:44, Anja Kovacs 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). > > +1 In many regions of the Global South, FoE is suppressed, and CS activists endanger their liberty in expressing themselves openly. 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. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 31 12:44:03 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:44:03 +0000 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: 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 | 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 > 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. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 13:29:42 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:29:42 -0400 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Anja Kovacs 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. > 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 13:30:44 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:30:44 -0400 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 on Andrew regarding my understanding of Best Bits On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:44 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. **** > > ** ** > > *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 > 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. > 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 > -- *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: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 31 13:44:22 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:44:22 +0100 Subject: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all In-Reply-To: <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> References: <701706D6-E3F6-41D8-973C-39CCAF2C43BF@glocom.ac.jp> <3791608C-7194-4F01-9440-B06F0E84B9D6@glocom.ac.jp> <5271DE73.5000608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: