From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Dec  1 01:41:48 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:41:48 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <1629970842.16620.1417388319391.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <1629970842.16620.1417388319391.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22>
Message-ID: <547C0DAC.3070900@cafonso.ca>

It is not possible. Unless you are a Canadian. You probably know Brazil 
endured 20 years of military dictatorship. As a militant against it, I 
was forced into exile in the 70's. Canada was one of the countries which 
received me, while the Brazilian military refused to provide me with 
documentation or even register my son as a Brazilian (my wife is also 
Brazilian). Se we had at the time the privilege to accept Canadian 
citizenship from the country which so generously received me and my family.

So I am now a Brazilian-Canadian, and proud of it, and so is my family.

Of course this is a silly issue, but anyway for the record... people who 
take this seriously can always write to cafonso at cidadania.org.br, while 
I like to use ca at cafonso.ca because it is short and maybe I am egocentric :)

rgds

--c.a.

On 11/30/14 23:58, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
> Hi Carlos
>
> you wrrote
>
> < Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind
> of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a
> look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe
> since the 2008 crisis.
>  >
>  > fraternal regards
>  >
>  > --c.a.
>
> Fraternal ? Really ?? BTW  : how do you know I'm "siting comfortably
> somewhere in Europe" ?
>
> For your information, I 'm just back at home from my five hours trip to
> Geneva, where I participated -and actively contributed  as one of the
> rare CS participants- to the CSTD 2014-2015 Intersessionel Panel. I'll
> transmit later a short report of it to the lists.
>
> BTW, my e-mail address ends with .fr, indicating, as you may know, I'm
> living in France. In turn, I'm wondering how it's possible for "a
> Brazilian, from Sao Paolo and living in Rio" to get an e-mail address
> ending by .ca ...  But I must admit, I'm not an Internet insider :-))
>
> Best regards
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>      > Message du 30/11/14 19:18
>      > De : "Carlos Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
>      > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" <jlfullsack at orange.fr>,
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "SureshRamasubramanian"
>     <suresh at hserus.net>, "parminderitforchange.net"
>     <parminder at itforchange.net>
>      > Copie à : "HartmutRichardGlaser" <glaser at cgi.br>,
>     "bestbitslists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>      > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
>      >
>      > Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No
>     one saw
>      > "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other
>     time
>      > except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for
>     president
>      > and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil has 142
>      > million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2
>     thousand
>      > people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of
>     Brazilian
>      > people.
>      >
>      > Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this
>     kind
>      > of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better
>     take a
>      > look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe
>      > since the 2008 crisis.
>      >
>      > fraternal regards
>      >
>      > --c.a.
>      >
>      > On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
>      > > Dear Carlos
>      > >
>      > > Yoiu wote :
>      > >
>      > > < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that
>     WEF took
>      > > the reigns
>      > > of the government of Brazil.
>      > >
>      > > You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians
>     -Indignados
>      > > and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and
>      > > Dilma's "softened" policy.
>      > >
>      > > BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of
>      > > treatment" ...
>      > >
>      > > Best regards
>      > >
>      > > Jean-louis Fullsack
>      > >
>      > >
>      > >
>      > >
>      > >
>      > >
>      > > > Message du 23/11/14 00:47
>      > > > De : "Carlos Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
>      > > > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>,
>      > > "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
>      > > "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
>      > > > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" <glaser at cgi.br>,
>      > > "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>      > > > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
>      > > >
>      > > > Dear people,
>      > > >
>      > > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as
>      > > president. As
>      > > > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with
>      > > massive
>      > > > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco
>      > > the
>      > > > thousands of people cheering Lula.
>      > > >
>      > > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of
>      > > > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social
>     movements of
>      > > > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a
>      > > sort of
>      > > > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants,
>      > > NGOs
>      > > > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among
>      > > them) --
>      > > > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and
>      > > there is
>      > > > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the
>      > > reigns
>      > > > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be
>      > > the other
>      > > > way around.
>      > > >
>      > > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of
>      > > > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different
>      > > > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other.
>      > > >
>      > > > fraternal regards
>      > > >
>      > > > --c.a.
>      > > >
>      > > > (*) See, for example, this report:
>      > > >
>      > >
>     http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation
>      > > >
>      > > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>      > > > >>
>      > > > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br
>      > > has now come
>      > > > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and
>      > > ICANN (basically
>      > > > >> doing US's bidding) game.
>      > > > >
>      > > > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure.
>      > > > >
>      > > > >
>      > > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave
>      > > the world
>      > > > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the
>      > > basic lessons
>      > > > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain
>      > > economic and
>      > > > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy,
>      > > especially at the
>      > > > >> global level!
>      > > > >>
>      > > > >
>      > > > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing.
>      > > > >
>      > > > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that
>      > > excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic
>      > > backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but
>      > > merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain
>      > > far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this
>      > > subject.
>      > > > >
>      > > > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the
>      > > Brazilian
>      > > > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a
>      > > great loss,
>      > > > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive
>      > > community
>      > > > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be
>      > > taken for
>      > > > >
>      > > > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global
>      > > progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you
>      > > continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently
>      > > doesn't share.
>      > > > >
>      > > > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you
>     come out
>      > > > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global
>      > > governance
>      > > > >> initiative.*
>      > > > >>
>      > > > >
>      > > > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of
>      > > extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord
>     preserve us
>      > > all from such support.
>      > > > >
>      > > > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work
>      > > together
>      > > > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil
>      > > society offer
>      > > > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the
>      > > interests
>      > > > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future
>      > > generations. Let
>      > > > >
>      > > > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of
>      > > inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large.
>      > > You don't and have never represented it all.
>      > > > >
>      > > > > --srs
>      > > > >
>      > > >
>      > > > ____________________________________________________________
>      > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>      > > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>      > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>      > > >
>      > > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>      > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>      > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>      > > >
>      > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>      > > >
>      > >
>      >
>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Dec  2 01:18:07 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:48:07 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <547CE824.1040908@acm.org>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net> <547CE824.1040908@acm.org>
Message-ID: <547D599F.3020008@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 02 December 2014 03:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> snip
>
> We participate in the ITU (I am sure you saw several of us at the PP 
> where we were participatory and not at all disruptive), the IGF, the 
> HRC and work with various other agencies of both the UN and the UN 
> system.  I personally worked with some of the ITU-T architecture and 
> protocol study groups during the last century before WSIS was even a 
> concept.  Currently many of us are knocking on the ITU Council Working 
> Group asking to be let in so we can have a seat at their table.  That 
> is hardly vilification.

You cannot claim that you have not heard of UN and ITU vilification in 
this space. In fact, I contend that a major part of the politics of 
major actors in this space is driven, more or less, by resistance to  
any UN body dealing with IG issues. Never mind that the same 
organisations gladly engage with intergovernmental systems dealing with 
IG inside an OECD or Council of Europe. In my email I mentioned several 
recent instances of such anti-UN ism, for instance

1. Making the very possible mention of Internet in ITU ITRs as a do or 
die issue (never mind in the US the same organisations are now fighting 
for classification of the Internet as a telecommunication service and 
not an information service).

2. Being lukewarm if not actively resistant to proposals at the ITU 
plenipot to take up issues of grave mass scale privacy violations and 
data intrusions, even as the world is reeling under the impact of this 
issue and there is no globally democratic place to deal with this issue 
in its holistic nature.

3. Being lukewarm if not actively resistant to a full scale WSIS plus 10 
political process, at the same level as the WSIS 1 and 2...

4. Having completely resistant or at least very lukewarm attitude to and 
engagement with the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation which was 
trying to seek possible needed institutional reforms/ evolution in the 
global IG space.

Any number of further instances can be given. I just think the above 
suffices to show that going for the WEF/ ICANN's NM Initiative at the 
same time as resisting UN based resolution or institutional development 
is a clear political choice that some have made. Putting our finger to 
that political choice and what we understand are its implications is our 
political duty. We would also obviously resist efforts to simply 
describe this choice in a non-political manner, of 'just trying to get 
all actors in'.

BTW, remember that at the time of initiation of the original NetMundial 
process, not only ICANN but also US government said and I quote from US 
ambassador's speech at Bali IGF, "organizing multistakeholder responses 
to Internet issues that do not have a home today. And we must work 
together with them in good faith on these important issues'. Therefore 
this new WEF/ ICANN NMI is continuation of the same process to deal with 
'orphan Internet issues', the list of which will of course keep 
expanding, The same issues about which the UN spaces are struggling to 
find their feet to deal with, but it are being strongly resisted in such 
attempts by the developed countries and most of the civil society that 
has joined the new NMI now.

So, to repeat, this is a case of particular political choice made by 
civil society groups to prefer an ICANN/ WEF system to deal with 
Internet related public policy issues over a UN or such globally 
democratic system, which is simultaneously being rejected, other than 
some 'rear guard' action kind of residual engagements. We think this is 
both an extremely dangerous thing, and in that respect perhaps historic, 
with regard to possibilities of a democratic governance of the global 
Internet.

parminder


>
> Yes, I object to the idea of the UN or ITU gaining supremacy over the 
> Internet but I and many others have long supported them as equal 
> footing participants in IG functions.
>
> And yes, I would equally object to NMI or WEF gaining supremacy in IG 
> as well.  I do not have the impression that they are trying to do 
> this.  And if they try, we better be there to nip it in the bud. But I 
> support them being equal footing participants in IG in the same way I 
> support the  UN and UN system organizations.
>
> avri
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141202/20487013/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Dec  2 01:38:36 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:08:36 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <547CE824.1040908@acm.org>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net> <547CE824.1040908@acm.org>
Message-ID: <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 02 December 2014 03:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> snip
>
> Yes, I object to the idea of the UN or ITU gaining supremacy over the 
> Internet but I and many others have long supported them as equal 
> footing participants in IG functions.
>
> And yes, I would equally object to NMI or WEF gaining supremacy in IG 
> as well.  I do not have the impression that they are trying to do 
> this.  And if they try, we better be there to nip it in the bud. But I 
> support them being equal footing participants in IG in the same way I 
> support the  UN and UN system organizations.

'Equal support' and 'equal objection'  to governments and, what is 
essentially, an industry body in taking up public policy roles is an 
interesting stand!

You just see governments as public policy actors at the same level as 
industry bodies. That precisely is the problem.

This is the neoliberal conception of governance, where (even political) 
governance is a kind of a bazaar, where anyone can come in and make 
deals, and those who have the greatest resources to back their deals 
carry the day, opting-in being of course voluntary and basically 
dependent upon how much can one resist a certain configuration of power 
which has entered into a particular deal. Any set of actors is 
'formally' as good as any other, and legitimate political power, based 
on people's representation, and an implied social contract, counts for 
nothing. (In fact this neolib model is constructed precisely to 
overthrow such currently dominant democratic models, and is therefore 
post-democratic, equal-footing multistakeholderism being just a 
convenient name for it.)

Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles to 
everything, including those areas in which such principles are not 
normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the application of 
market principles to governance, as I said , the pristine neoliberal 
governance model.

One often wonders, and I have thrown this challenge oftentimes in this 
space, why do the same actors not try to propose this model at the 
national levels . Propose that the government(s) and industry 
associations are at the same level in terms of public policy 
development, and they should work together as such. You would get some 
very clear and resounding responses that will tell you whether this 
model is democratic or not. In fact, go even further down to local 
governance level as well and propose the same thing. That is a simple 
test of democracy, isnt it.

parminder




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141202/1897bb7b/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Tue Dec  2 01:43:13 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 07:43:13 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <547D599F.3020008@itforchange.net>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net> <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D599F.3020008@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <547D5F81.50407@acm.org>


On 02-Dec-14 07:18, parminder wrote:
> You cannot claim that you have not heard of UN and ITU vilification in
> this space.

That i do not deny.

Everything and everyone has been vilified by someone or other at some
point on civil society lists;  that seems in the nature of civil society
lists and we live with it.  Business and the UN/U systems are equitably
vilified by individuals within civil society.

What I am claiming is that it is not systemic and there there are more
examples of people willing to work with the UN and the UN system than
participate in vilification activities. I beleive that most people on
civil society lists accept the interplay of  stakeholders, both
individuals and institutional.

avri





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141202/f205351b/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Tue Dec  2 01:47:03 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 07:47:03 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net> <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <547D6067.4090306@acm.org>


On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:
> Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles to
> everything, including those areas in which such principles are not
> normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the application of
> market principles to governance, as I said , the pristine neoliberal
> governance model.

You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and
feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and
imperialism at other times.  I accept that you do so, yet I reject the
label you apply to me.

I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in the
tussle among those with different set of principles.

avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141202/6febd685/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Dec  2 02:01:45 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:31:45 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <547D6067.4090306@acm.org>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net> <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net> <547D6067.4090306@acm.org>
Message-ID: <547D63D9.2020700@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 02 December 2014 12:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:
>> Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles to 
>> everything, including those areas in which such principles are not 
>> normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the application of 
>> market principles to governance, as I said , the pristine neoliberal 
>> governance model.
>
> You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and 
> feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and 
> imperialism at other times.

See, here precisely lies the problem. I did nothing other than 
analytically describe the affinity of a particular case in point, the NM 
Initiative, and the CS support to it, with a theoritical model called 
neoliberalism. Now, it is possible to point to deficiency in my equation 
or argument, but call it vilification!!! One could reject that the NMI 
and CS support for it does not further neoliberal model of governance, 
or, as Milton does, own up the neoliberal model of Internet governance, 
but I do not really see the vilification here. And again I associated 
the term with a particular model and a set of political actions around 
it,  and not to any individual behaviour for it to be called as 
vilification. In fact this whole thread begun with wrongly labelling 
political criticism as vilification. Such personalisation of a political 
dialogue takes us nowhere, and makes it difficult to continue with it.

parminder

> I accept that you do so, yet I reject the label you apply to me.
>
> I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in 
> the tussle among those with different set of principles.
>
> avri
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141202/a0524570/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Tue Dec  2 05:12:18 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:12:18 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <14a09d2f560.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net> <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net> <547D6067.4090306@acm.org> <547D63D9.2020700@itforchange.net> <14a09d2f560.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <1EA13878-258D-4AD3-BFD4-9A5F386A7EDD@gmail.com>

If people wanted to do some politics on which there could be broad agreement, responding to the right wing campaign in the US against the transfer of IANA stewardship from the US to the global community might be worth considering.  This has become increasingly salient with the recent US election and is widely seen on the net.  For a choice example, see the nut campaign being waged on the pages inter alia of the Wall Street Journal, e.g. below.  Why not submit a letter or op-ed?

Halfway to Wrecking Internet Freedom: To forestall censorship by authoritarian governments, the White House must renew the Icann contract. [subscription maybe required]
We’re at the midpoint between the Obama administration’s March announcement that it would end U.S. protection of the open Internet and September 2015, when the change is supposed to happen. During this time, there has been no progress finding an alternative for protecting the Internet from authoritarian governments.
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-halfway-to-wrecking-internet-freedom-1417387404 <http://online.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-halfway-to-wrecking-internet-freedom-1417387404>>

Bill

> On Dec 2, 2014, at 8:07 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> The problem is that your theoretical model is an artificial construct, one that exists only in your own little clique of people and bears little or no semblance to actual neo liberalism.
> 
> This random repurposing of existing terms in economics and international relations into terms of vilification doesn't constitute any theory that I am aware of.
> 
> And people are trying to get work done here and not play politics. In case it escaped your attention 
> On December 2, 2014 12:32:39 PM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday 02 December 2014 12:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:
>>>> Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles to everything, including those areas in which such principles are not normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the application of market principles to governance, as I said , the pristine neoliberal governance model. 
>>> 
>>> You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and imperialism at other times. 
>> 
>> See, here precisely lies the problem. I did nothing other than analytically describe the affinity of a particular case in point, the NM Initiative, and the CS support to it, with a theoritical model called neoliberalism. Now, it is possible to point to deficiency in my equation or argument, but call it vilification!!! One could reject that the NMI and CS support for it does not further neoliberal model of governance, or, as Milton does, own up the neoliberal model of Internet governance, but I do not really see the vilification here. And again I associated the term with a particular model and a set of political actions around it,  and not to any individual behaviour for it to be called as vilification. In fact this whole thread begun with wrongly labelling political criticism as vilification. Such personalisation of a political dialogue takes us nowhere, and makes it difficult to continue with it. 
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>>> I accept that you do so, yet I reject the label you apply to me.
>>> 
>>> I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in the tussle among those with different set of principles.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

***********************************************
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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141202/2066f24f/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue Dec  2 14:26:32 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:26:32 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Invitation to participate in developing the Manila
 Principles on Intermediary Liability
Message-ID: <547E1268.2040203@eff.org>

On behalf of the steering committee of the Manila Principles project,
participants on this list are invited to join us as we develop the
Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, which we are aiming to
launch at an event on 22-23 March in Manila, ahead of RightsCon 2015
Southeast Asia.

The Manila Principles will be a best practices framework and set of
baseline safeguards  for regulators and intermediaries to consider when
developing, adopting, and reviewing legislation, policies and practices
that extend liability to intermediaries for online third party content.
Their objective is to promote the development of more principled,
interoperable, and harmonized liability regimes that can promote users'
rights and innovation.

The steering committee of the project which has developed an initial
draft for discussion is a small but geographically diverse group
including Centre for Internet and Society (India), Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) (USA), Article 19 (UK and global), Asociación por los
Derechos Civiles (ADC) (Argentina), Derechos Digitales (Chile), KICTANET
(Kenya), and OpenNet Korea.

The outputs of their initial preparatory work consist of a short
document containing the draft principles themselves, and a longer
background paper which explains the rationale behind them and includes
references to previous work on this topic.   PDF, Word and OpenDocument
versions are available on request, and Google Docs links to both, where
you can add comments, are found here:

  * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kAkqgt3cRb65d8ik6vWYgpk6DYpP8ABA43ljgDiGOf8/edit#heading=h.9kpzf1ul1zfg
    (the Manila Principles)
  * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QfxH1jX_ewfB8TV5iQBSloyttjwaMP47nwblMzN4Hg4/edit#heading=h.tqnj2pprtelu
    (the Background Paper)

We would be very grateful if you could find the time to attend an
initial web conference to discuss the project, and to offer your
comments on the drafts over the next three months leading up to the
meeting in Manila. We also hope that you may be interested in
participating in that meeting, the agenda for which remains open. Some
travel support may be offered to selected participants.

If you are interested in participating - and we hope you are - please
respond to this survey, which will enable us to ensure that you are
included in the ongoing discussions and receive a link to participate in
the web conference:

https://doodle.com/9tz52mryh7xz42ya

Even if you cannot attend the web conference, but are interested in
contributing to the development of the principles online, you should
still complete the poll by selecting "Cannot make it" and confirming
your email address, so that we can add you to the working group which
will be finalising the text.  Our aim is to have received all comments
on the text by mid-February 2015, to leave time to integrate them all.

Please also feel free to forward this message to any colleagues whom you
think may also be interested in participating.  Although the draft text
is certainly not "top secret", we suggest that you refraining from
publishing the principles, tweeting, blogging etc until the final draft
is published, to minimise confusion about whether they have already been
agreed.

Many thanks, and we look forward to working with you as we jointly
develop and launch the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141202/bdd607f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141202/bdd607f2/attachment.sig>

From sylvia at apnic.net  Tue Dec  2 20:44:18 2014
From: sylvia at apnic.net (Sylvia Cadena)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 01:44:18 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <5A0C228F-62BB-4D2C-A060-15812D370B94@consensus.pro>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba>
 <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca> <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org>
 <5A0C228F-62BB-4D2C-A060-15812D370B94@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <D0A4A672.9E40C%sylvia@apnic.net>

That is a great idea. Maybe worth checking some tools/methodology for sprint-writing? When I supported the Wireless Networking for the Development World book first editions, It was very useful to organize the chapters and have sprints to write them and have a whole book ready for a specific date. The book has been updated, revamped, translated all using the same tool, inviting new authors, adding case studies, etc. On the first edition they used Lulu to print on demand, not sure which service they are using now.

Looking forward to read it, whatever shape/form it takes :)

Sylvia

From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro<mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
Reply-To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro<mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
Date: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 4:38 am
To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification

+1 and me too on the updating.

On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:

Hi,

Might be one of those things that is more suited to a wiki or some other online work that can be updated as necessary.

And if one does create one of those with the proper format, it can be gathered into an ebook  or an printed object whenever wanted.

I like the idea of a an online development that combines new writings with existing writings that is under constant update, and would be willing to contribute to that sort of ongoing dynamic effort if we aable to get one organized.

avri
On 01-Dec-14 10:54, Carlos Afonso wrote:
The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is that a book is static while the IG processes are in a complex, difficult dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph" of something which would be more or less regularly updated in a corresponding collaborative portal?

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:


    I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
    Internet Governance Handbook”.


Sala: Let's do this!

    This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present
    their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what
    the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters:

    1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
    2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
    3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
    infrastructure development etc.)
    4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)

    Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo,
    APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author
    would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen
    pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free
    to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever
    position on one of the four main issues.

    Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the
    process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG
    events ahead of us.

    We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
    official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions
    etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book
    would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish
    this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen
    by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would
    strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder
    mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process.

    The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six
    groups) would be the editor.

    Any comment?

    Wolfgang



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

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

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





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

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



All the best,

Sylvia

Join the conversation | https://blog.apnic.net/

—————————————————————————

Sylvia Cadena  |  Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net
ISIF  Asia Information Society Innovation Fund

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646
Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia

sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net
skype: sylviacadena
https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia
http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia
Twitter @ISIF_Asia
ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia

* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141203/3d81dcd0/attachment.htm>

From g.astbrink at gsa.com.au  Tue Dec  2 22:15:50 2014
From: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au (Gunela Astbrink)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:15:50 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <D0A4A672.9E40C%sylvia@apnic.net>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com> <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca> <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org> <5A0C228F-62BB-4D2C-A060-15812D370B94@consensus.pro> <D0A4A672.9E40C%sylvia@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <547E8066.3010306@gsa.com.au>

Totally support Wolf's suggestion.

The content in, for example, the Human Rights section should at least 
cover all the Principles set out in the NetMundial Statement. Each of 
these Human Rights Principles can be explored in depth by the authors 
and analyses of other principles added if needed. Importantly, we don't 
want to overlook any of the existing principles.

A positive and exciting project!

Gunela

Sylvia Cadena said the following on 3/12/14 12:44 :
> That is a great idea. Maybe worth checking some tools/methodology for
> sprint-writing? When I supported the Wireless Networking for the
> Development World book first editions, It was very useful to organize
> the chapters and have sprints to write them and have a whole book ready
> for a specific date. The book has been updated, revamped, translated all
> using the same tool, inviting new authors, adding case studies, etc. On
> the first edition they used Lulu to print on demand, not sure which
> service they are using now.
>
> Looking forward to read it, whatever shape/form it takes :)
>
> Sylvia
>
> From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
> Reply-To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
> Date: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 4:38 am
> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
>
>     +1 and me too on the updating.
>
>     On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     Might be one of those things that is more suited to a wiki or some
>>     other online work that can be updated as necessary.
>>
>>     And if one does create one of those with the proper format, it can
>>     be gathered into an ebook  or an printed object whenever wanted.
>>
>>     I like the idea of a an online development that combines new
>>     writings with existing writings that is under constant update, and
>>     would be willing to contribute to that sort of ongoing dynamic
>>     effort if we aable to get one organized.
>>
>>     avri
>>     On 01-Dec-14 10:54, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>     The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is
>>>     that a book is static while the IG processes are in a complex,
>>>     difficult dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph"
>>>     of something which would be more or less regularly updated in a
>>>     corresponding collaborative portal?
>>>
>>>     fraternal regards
>>>
>>>     --c.a.
>>>
>>>     On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
>>>>         Internet Governance Handbook”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Sala: Let's do this!
>>>>
>>>>         This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to
>>>>     present
>>>>         their own individual points of views so that everybody knows
>>>>     what
>>>>         the positions are. The book could be structured into four
>>>>     main chapters:
>>>>
>>>>         1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy
>>>>     etc.)
>>>>         2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
>>>>         3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
>>>>         infrastructure development etc.)
>>>>         4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>>>>
>>>>         Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG,
>>>>     Diplo,
>>>>         APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter).
>>>>     Each author
>>>>         would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum
>>>>     teen
>>>>         pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would
>>>>     be free
>>>>         to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever
>>>>         position on one of the four main issues.
>>>>
>>>>         Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into
>>>>     the
>>>>         process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG
>>>>         events ahead of us.
>>>>
>>>>         We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex
>>>>     with main
>>>>         official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN
>>>>     Resolutions
>>>>         etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book
>>>>         would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could
>>>>     publish
>>>>         this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book
>>>>     would seen
>>>>         by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution,
>>>>     it would
>>>>         strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder
>>>>         mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+
>>>>     process.
>>>>
>>>>         The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six
>>>>         groups) would be the editor.
>>>>
>>>>         Any comment?
>>>>
>>>>         Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as 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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Sylvia
>
> Join the conversation | https://blog.apnic.net/
>
> —————————————————————————
>
> Sylvia Cadena  |  Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net
> ISIF  Asia Information Society Innovation Fund
>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646
> Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
> http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia
>
> sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net
> skype: sylviacadena
> https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia
> http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia
> Twitter @ISIF_Asia
> ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia
>
> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-- 
Gunela Astbrink
GSA InfoComm
PO Box 600
Ballina NSW 2478
Australia
Mobile: +61 417 715738
Email: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au
www.gsa.com.au

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Dec  3 07:59:02 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:59:02 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <547E8066.3010306@gsa.com.au>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com> <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca> <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org> <5A0C228F-62BB-4D2C-A060-15812D370B94@consensus.pro> <D0A4A672.9E40C%sylvia@apnic.net> <547E8066.3010306@gsa.com.au>
Message-ID: <BD1540E5-55E8-46E0-8159-457C08A369F2@consensus.pro>

With respect to this example - and others with a long history that predates the Internet, but which apply fully online, I think you have to start with the source, which is not the NetMundial principles, but international human rights law and the documents that recognise how it applies online.

> On 3 Dec 2014, at 04:15, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink at gsa.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Totally support Wolf's suggestion.
> 
> The content in, for example, the Human Rights section should at least cover all the Principles set out in the NetMundial Statement. Each of these Human Rights Principles can be explored in depth by the authors and analyses of other principles added if needed. Importantly, we don't want to overlook any of the existing principles.
> 
> A positive and exciting project!
> 
> Gunela
> 
> Sylvia Cadena said the following on 3/12/14 12:44 :
>> That is a great idea. Maybe worth checking some tools/methodology for
>> sprint-writing? When I supported the Wireless Networking for the
>> Development World book first editions, It was very useful to organize
>> the chapters and have sprints to write them and have a whole book ready
>> for a specific date. The book has been updated, revamped, translated all
>> using the same tool, inviting new authors, adding case studies, etc. On
>> the first edition they used Lulu to print on demand, not sure which
>> service they are using now.
>> 
>> Looking forward to read it, whatever shape/form it takes :)
>> 
>> Sylvia
>> 
>> From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
>> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
>> Reply-To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
>> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
>> Date: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 4:38 am
>> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
>> 
>>    +1 and me too on the updating.
>> 
>>    On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>    <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>>    Hi,
>>> 
>>>    Might be one of those things that is more suited to a wiki or some
>>>    other online work that can be updated as necessary.
>>> 
>>>    And if one does create one of those with the proper format, it can
>>>    be gathered into an ebook or an printed object whenever wanted.
>>> 
>>>    I like the idea of a an online development that combines new
>>>    writings with existing writings that is under constant update, and
>>>    would be willing to contribute to that sort of ongoing dynamic
>>>    effort if we aable to get one organized.
>>> 
>>>    avri
>>>    On 01-Dec-14 10:54, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>    The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is
>>>>    that a book is static while the IG processes are in a complex,
>>>>    difficult dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph"
>>>>    of something which would be more or less regularly updated in a
>>>>    corresponding collaborative portal?
>>>> 
>>>>    fraternal regards
>>>> 
>>>>    --c.a.
>>>> 
>>>>    On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>        I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
>>>>>        Internet Governance Handbook”.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Sala: Let's do this!
>>>>> 
>>>>>        This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to
>>>>>    present
>>>>>        their own individual points of views so that everybody knows
>>>>>    what
>>>>>        the positions are. The book could be structured into four
>>>>>    main chapters:
>>>>> 
>>>>>        1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy
>>>>>    etc.)
>>>>>        2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
>>>>>        3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
>>>>>        infrastructure development etc.)
>>>>>        4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG,
>>>>>    Diplo,
>>>>>        APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter).
>>>>>    Each author
>>>>>        would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum
>>>>>    teen
>>>>>        pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would
>>>>>    be free
>>>>>        to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever
>>>>>        position on one of the four main issues.
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into
>>>>>    the
>>>>>        process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG
>>>>>        events ahead of us.
>>>>> 
>>>>>        We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex
>>>>>    with main
>>>>>        official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN
>>>>>    Resolutions
>>>>>        etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book
>>>>>        would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could
>>>>>    publish
>>>>>        this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book
>>>>>    would seen
>>>>>        by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution,
>>>>>    it would
>>>>>        strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder
>>>>>        mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+
>>>>>    process.
>>>>> 
>>>>>        The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six
>>>>>        groups) would be the editor.
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Any comment?
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Wolfgang
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>    <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>        To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>>        For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>        To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>>    You received this message as 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<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Sylvia
>> 
>> Join the conversation | https://blog.apnic.net/
>> 
>> —————————————————————————
>> 
>> Sylvia Cadena  |  Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net
>> ISIF  Asia Information Society Innovation Fund
>> 
>> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
>> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646
>> Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
>> http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia
>> 
>> sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net
>> skype: sylviacadena
>> https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia
>> http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia
>> Twitter @ISIF_Asia
>> ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia
>> 
>> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Gunela Astbrink
> GSA InfoComm
> PO Box 600
> Ballina NSW 2478
> Australia
> Mobile: +61 417 715738
> Email: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au
> www.gsa.com.au
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com  Mon Dec  1 02:51:34 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:51:34 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <D580144C-2BF4-4E4E-AC1E-8872785B7E85@me.com>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org>
 <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <D580144C-2BF4-4E4E-AC1E-8872785B7E85@me.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh12FBv87+q1BwEktfhr2FHgb4kEf56r738cRwd7Jv4nXmA@mail.gmail.com>

Great idea here. At least someone is saying "do".
Color me interested.

Quick one here: is "social justice" as a theme covered under theme 1?
Should we add a "social and cultural development" theme, distinct from
economical development?

Still thinking

Nnenna

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:04 PM, "João Carlos R. Caribé" <joao.caribe at me.com
> wrote:

> Appear to be a very interesting idea, first time come to my mind this
> project could expose strategically the civil society stakeholder, giving
> out concerns, positions and other valuable assets that can be used against
> us in our strives, shortly thereafter I realized that who can use it knows
> us better than us.
>
> I approve, also can support in any task.
>
> Congratulations for this savvy idea Wolf
>
>
> Joao Caribe
>
> Em 28/11/2014, às 05:21, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu:
>
> > Hi everybody
> >
> > After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying
> collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly)
> disputes is that there are many different  civil society activists with
> different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers
> who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as
> well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society.
> On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups
> has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you
> compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU,
> Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc.
> > This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the
> position. So it is about transparency and clarity.
> >
> > Here is a proposal how to move forward:  We have seen so many people
> writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if
> we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or
> issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the
> real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather
> different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.
> >
> > I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet
> Governance Handbook”.  This handbook would allow all CS groups within the
> CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody
> knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main
> chapters:
> >
> > 1.    Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
> > 2.    Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
> > 3.    Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
> infrastructure development etc.)
> > 4.    Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
> >
> > Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC)
> could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be
> free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is
> no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his
> radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main
> issues.
> >
> > Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process
> and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us.
> >
> > We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
> official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.)
> until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around
> 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York
> event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG
> Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in
> the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into
> the WSIS 10+ process.
> >
> > The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups)
> would be the editor.
> >
> > Any comment?
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> --
> João Carlos R. Caribé
> Consultor
> Skype joaocaribe
> (021) 4042 7727
> (021) 9 8761 1967
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141201/2a253ea0/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Wed Dec  3 08:13:38 2014
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:13:38 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <BD1540E5-55E8-46E0-8159-457C08A369F2@consensus.pro>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com> <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca> <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org> <5A0C228F-62BB-4D2C-A060-15812D370B94@consensus.pro> <D0A4A672.9E40C%sylvia@apnic.net> <547E8066.3010306@gsa.com.au> <BD1540E5-55E8-46E0-8159-457C08A369F2@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <547F0C82.5050101@gold.ac.uk>

Dear all

Thanks Nick for this timely reminder; and to underscore a formative 
contribution to this set of documents once again, here is the link to 
the IRP Coalition Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the 
Internet, in all 5 languages. More translations on their way.

http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/

Enough people on this list can proudly say they contributed to this 
project, as recognized in subseqnet ones and it in turn developing those 
that came before. Updates on this work coming soon on the IRPC list, and 
elsewhere..

best
MF

On 03/12/2014 12:59, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> With respect to this example - and others with a long history that predates the Internet, but which apply fully online, I think you have to start with the source, which is not the NetMundial principles, but international human rights law and the documents that recognise how it applies online.
>
>> On 3 Dec 2014, at 04:15, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink at gsa.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Totally support Wolf's suggestion.
>>
>> The content in, for example, the Human Rights section should at least cover all the Principles set out in the NetMundial Statement. Each of these Human Rights Principles can be explored in depth by the authors and analyses of other principles added if needed. Importantly, we don't want to overlook any of the existing principles.
>>
>> A positive and exciting project!
>>
>> Gunela
>>
>> Sylvia Cadena said the following on 3/12/14 12:44 :
>>> That is a great idea. Maybe worth checking some tools/methodology for
>>> sprint-writing? When I supported the Wireless Networking for the
>>> Development World book first editions, It was very useful to organize
>>> the chapters and have sprints to write them and have a whole book ready
>>> for a specific date. The book has been updated, revamped, translated all
>>> using the same tool, inviting new authors, adding case studies, etc. On
>>> the first edition they used Lulu to print on demand, not sure which
>>> service they are using now.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to read it, whatever shape/form it takes :)
>>>
>>> Sylvia
>>>
>>> From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
>>> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
>>> Reply-To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
>>> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 4:38 am
>>> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
>>>
>>>     +1 and me too on the updating.
>>>
>>>     On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>     Might be one of those things that is more suited to a wiki or some
>>>>     other online work that can be updated as necessary.
>>>>
>>>>     And if one does create one of those with the proper format, it can
>>>>     be gathered into an ebook or an printed object whenever wanted.
>>>>
>>>>     I like the idea of a an online development that combines new
>>>>     writings with existing writings that is under constant update, and
>>>>     would be willing to contribute to that sort of ongoing dynamic
>>>>     effort if we aable to get one organized.
>>>>
>>>>     avri
>>>>     On 01-Dec-14 10:54, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>     The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is
>>>>>     that a book is static while the IG processes are in a complex,
>>>>>     difficult dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph"
>>>>>     of something which would be more or less regularly updated in a
>>>>>     corresponding collaborative portal?
>>>>>
>>>>>     fraternal regards
>>>>>
>>>>>     --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
>>>>>>         Internet Governance Handbook”.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Sala: Let's do this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to
>>>>>>     present
>>>>>>         their own individual points of views so that everybody knows
>>>>>>     what
>>>>>>         the positions are. The book could be structured into four
>>>>>>     main chapters:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy
>>>>>>     etc.)
>>>>>>         2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
>>>>>>         3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
>>>>>>         infrastructure development etc.)
>>>>>>         4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG,
>>>>>>     Diplo,
>>>>>>         APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter).
>>>>>>     Each author
>>>>>>         would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum
>>>>>>     teen
>>>>>>         pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would
>>>>>>     be free
>>>>>>         to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever
>>>>>>         position on one of the four main issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into
>>>>>>     the
>>>>>>         process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG
>>>>>>         events ahead of us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex
>>>>>>     with main
>>>>>>         official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN
>>>>>>     Resolutions
>>>>>>         etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book
>>>>>>         would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could
>>>>>>     publish
>>>>>>         this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book
>>>>>>     would seen
>>>>>>         by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution,
>>>>>>     it would
>>>>>>         strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder
>>>>>>         mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+
>>>>>>     process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six
>>>>>>         groups) would be the editor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Any comment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Wolfgang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     You received this message as 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<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Sylvia
>>>
>>> Join the conversation | https://blog.apnic.net/
>>>
>>> —————————————————————————
>>>
>>> Sylvia Cadena  |  Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net
>>> ISIF  Asia Information Society Innovation Fund
>>>
>>> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
>>> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646
>>> Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
>>> http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia
>>>
>>> sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net
>>> skype: sylviacadena
>>> https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia
>>> http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia
>>> Twitter @ISIF_Asia
>>> ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia
>>>
>>> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>> -- 
>> Gunela Astbrink
>> GSA InfoComm
>> PO Box 600
>> Ballina NSW 2478
>> Australia
>> Mobile: +61 417 715738
>> Email: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au
>> www.gsa.com.au
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Dr Marianne Franklin
Professor of Global Media & Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Department of Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross,
London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
Email: <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
Twitter: @GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
Steering Commmittee member/former co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Twitter: @netrights
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
email: info at irpcharter.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141203/7e66d189/attachment.htm>

From judith at jhellerstein.com  Wed Dec  3 09:35:39 2014
From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:35:39 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Cato Conference: The 2014 Cato Institute
 Surveillance Conference, December 12, 2014
In-Reply-To: <98c97f42691d5de57bc9448221ff39c0925.20141203142803@mail178.atl81.rsgsv.net>
References: <98c97f42691d5de57bc9448221ff39c0925.20141203142803@mail178.atl81.rsgsv.net>
Message-ID: <547F1FBB.4030304@jhellerstein.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141203/934d7cd9/attachment.htm>

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Dec  3 12:10:35 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 17:10:35 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <547D6067.4090306@acm.org>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22>
 <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net>
 <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net>
 <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net>
 <547D6067.4090306@acm.org>
Message-ID: <d9f20a4ab4ef40979ddff7377bda2461@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Can I introduce some rationality to this discussion?

First, neo-liberalism is not per se a “vile label” unless you think liberalism is vile, in which case you need to explain to me why you think freedom of thought, expression, association, choice, popular sovereignty and free trade are vile, all of which are the key features of liberalism as an ideology or movement.

Neo-liberalism in literal terms simply refers to the revival of liberal thought that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s (i.e., “neo” + “liberal”) following the economic stagnation brought on by the excesses of the social democracy and regulatory state that emerged in the 1920s and 30s. Whatever you think of the economic liberalizations of that period, it’s pretty hard to argue with the record of stagflation, budget crises of the welfare state, slowing or declining growth, and a record of complete failure by socialist/communist economies that occurred in that period.

Thus, neo-liberalism does not mean indiscriminate application of market principles to everything, but it did reflect a recognition that many parts of society or the economy which had been exempted from market forces were failing and could be improved through the introduction of competition and market forces.

The centerpiece of neoliberalism was globalization of the economy and free trade. The term neoliberalism was coined as part of the backlash against trade liberalization and the attempt by certain international institutions to enforce budget constraints and sectoral liberalization policies on developing countries as a condition for receiving loans or aid. This is where some of the abuses or harder hands of the Washington approach to liberalization could be felt; sometimes the cookie-cutter approach to policy that was imposed was inappropriate. But for the most part, that period saw rapid worldwide growth and development. In particular, China and India opened their economies to market forces and grew tremendously as a result.

When I say that the Internet was a product of neoliberal policies I am referring to several largely indisputable facts:

a)      Prior to ‘neoliberal’ policies the telecom system was the epitome of social democracy: it was run as a state-owned monopoly, market forces were largely absent.

b)      The developmental record of state-owned PTT monopolies was abysmal, there were 1% - 10% penetration rates, 6 months waiting lists for service, massive inefficiency and protectionism. Opponents of neoliberalism need to own up to this.

c)       Competition stimulated rapid improvements in technology and massive decreases in pricing for telecom services

d)      Free trade agreements for IT equipment and “information services” made it possible for TCP/IP based services to spread rapidly across the world regardless of state censorship or regulation

In short, if you care about prosperity, growth, economic development and freedom, and you want to have an intelligent discussion of the role of public policy in the internet economy, all these things need to be taken into account. If you want to call people names, I’m not interested.

--MM

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:47 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br


On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:
Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles to everything, including those areas in which such principles are not normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the application of market principles to governance, as I said , the pristine neoliberal governance model.

You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and imperialism at other times.  I accept that you do so, yet I reject the label you apply to me.

I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in the tussle among those with different set of principles.

avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141203/8c6b0511/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Dec  3 14:05:15 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 19:05:15 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <d9f20a4ab4ef40979ddff7377bda2461@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22>
 <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net>
 <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net>
 <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net>
 <547D6067.4090306@acm.org>,<d9f20a4ab4ef40979ddff7377bda2461@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <d7744868764646f4ab75eb02509155f0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Milton,


You are being too kind in describing the abject failure of those past non-neo-liberal policies, which had truly vile effects.


Waiting lists stretched up to...12 years...for a simple landline phone, in admittedly 'worst' cases.


Post-liberalization entry of mobile phones uncovered such extreme unmet demand that 1st mobiles (with service subscription) could sell for up to $50,000 - 20 years ago, in one case I am familiar with. Yeah that's right, when all one could do with a mobile was make a call.


Lee



________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 12:10 PM
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'
Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br

Can I introduce some rationality to this discussion?

First, neo-liberalism is not per se a “vile label” unless you think liberalism is vile, in which case you need to explain to me why you think freedom of thought, expression, association, choice, popular sovereignty and free trade are vile, all of which are the key features of liberalism as an ideology or movement.

Neo-liberalism in literal terms simply refers to the revival of liberal thought that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s (i.e., “neo” + “liberal”) following the economic stagnation brought on by the excesses of the social democracy and regulatory state that emerged in the 1920s and 30s. Whatever you think of the economic liberalizations of that period, it’s pretty hard to argue with the record of stagflation, budget crises of the welfare state, slowing or declining growth, and a record of complete failure by socialist/communist economies that occurred in that period.

Thus, neo-liberalism does not mean indiscriminate application of market principles to everything, but it did reflect a recognition that many parts of society or the economy which had been exempted from market forces were failing and could be improved through the introduction of competition and market forces.

The centerpiece of neoliberalism was globalization of the economy and free trade. The term neoliberalism was coined as part of the backlash against trade liberalization and the attempt by certain international institutions to enforce budget constraints and sectoral liberalization policies on developing countries as a condition for receiving loans or aid. This is where some of the abuses or harder hands of the Washington approach to liberalization could be felt; sometimes the cookie-cutter approach to policy that was imposed was inappropriate. But for the most part, that period saw rapid worldwide growth and development. In particular, China and India opened their economies to market forces and grew tremendously as a result.

When I say that the Internet was a product of neoliberal policies I am referring to several largely indisputable facts:

a)      Prior to ‘neoliberal’ policies the telecom system was the epitome of social democracy: it was run as a state-owned monopoly, market forces were largely absent.

b)      The developmental record of state-owned PTT monopolies was abysmal, there were 1% - 10% penetration rates, 6 months waiting lists for service, massive inefficiency and protectionism. Opponents of neoliberalism need to own up to this.

c)       Competition stimulated rapid improvements in technology and massive decreases in pricing for telecom services

d)      Free trade agreements for IT equipment and “information services” made it possible for TCP/IP based services to spread rapidly across the world regardless of state censorship or regulation

In short, if you care about prosperity, growth, economic development and freedom, and you want to have an intelligent discussion of the role of public policy in the internet economy, all these things need to be taken into account. If you want to call people names, I’m not interested.

--MM

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:47 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br


On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:
Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles to everything, including those areas in which such principles are not normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the application of market principles to governance, as I said , the pristine neoliberal governance model.

You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and imperialism at other times.  I accept that you do so, yet I reject the label you apply to me.

I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in the tussle among those with different set of principles.

avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141203/6ebab6a1/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Dec  3 14:40:22 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:40:22 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <d9f20a4ab4ef40979ddff7377bda2461@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net> <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net> <547D6067.4090306@acm.org> <d9f20a4ab4ef40979ddff7377bda2461@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <15c701d00f30$fb06ad30$f1140790$@gmail.com>

FWIW, apart from some (fairly minor) differences in interpretation and emphasis (and of course overall normative stance—the period of what Milton calls economic stagnation could be seen both as a period during which there was a huge raising up of living standards throughout the developed world at least, the putting into place of the technology and intellectual pre-conditions for the current tsunami of technology advance, and the development of institutional means for the more recent advances in many LDC’s) I agree with what Milton says below.

 

Also, knowing little about the telecom’s situation in LDC’s at the time I think it is unarguable that without the strong intervention through public sector regulation (and stimulation) there would have been little to no telecom service throughout the 90% of Canada’s geography where the cost of landline infrastructure was not market supportable. Notably today there are still significant problems throughout the Canadian north with mobile service given the cost of infrastructure in a more or less totally de-regulated telecom marketplace to the point where certain communities have developed their own infrastructure and services http://mobile.knet.ca/

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 9:11 AM
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'
Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br

 

Can I introduce some rationality to this discussion? 

 

First, neo-liberalism is not per se a “vile label” unless you think liberalism is vile, in which case you need to explain to me why you think freedom of thought, expression, association, choice, popular sovereignty and free trade are vile, all of which are the key features of liberalism as an ideology or movement. 

 

Neo-liberalism in literal terms simply refers to the revival of liberal thought that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s (i.e., “neo” + “liberal”) following the economic stagnation brought on by the excesses of the social democracy and regulatory state that emerged in the 1920s and 30s. Whatever you think of the economic liberalizations of that period, it’s pretty hard to argue with the record of stagflation, budget crises of the welfare state, slowing or declining growth, and a record of complete failure by socialist/communist economies that occurred in that period.

 

Thus, neo-liberalism does not mean indiscriminate application of market principles to everything, but it did reflect a recognition that many parts of society or the economy which had been exempted from market forces were failing and could be improved through the introduction of competition and market forces. 

 

The centerpiece of neoliberalism was globalization of the economy and free trade. The term neoliberalism was coined as part of the backlash against trade liberalization and the attempt by certain international institutions to enforce budget constraints and sectoral liberalization policies on developing countries as a condition for receiving loans or aid. This is where some of the abuses or harder hands of the Washington approach to liberalization could be felt; sometimes the cookie-cutter approach to policy that was imposed was inappropriate. But for the most part, that period saw rapid worldwide growth and development. In particular, China and India opened their economies to market forces and grew tremendously as a result.

 

When I say that the Internet was a product of neoliberal policies I am referring to several largely indisputable facts: 

a)      Prior to ‘neoliberal’ policies the telecom system was the epitome of social democracy: it was run as a state-owned monopoly, market forces were largely absent. 

b)      The developmental record of state-owned PTT monopolies was abysmal, there were 1% - 10% penetration rates, 6 months waiting lists for service, massive inefficiency and protectionism. Opponents of neoliberalism need to own up to this.

c)       Competition stimulated rapid improvements in technology and massive decreases in pricing for telecom services

d)      Free trade agreements for IT equipment and “information services” made it possible for TCP/IP based services to spread rapidly across the world regardless of state censorship or regulation

 

In short, if you care about prosperity, growth, economic development and freedom, and you want to have an intelligent discussion of the role of public policy in the internet economy, all these things need to be taken into account. If you want to call people names, I’m not interested. 

 

--MM

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:47 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br

 

 

On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:

Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles to everything, including those areas in which such principles are not normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the application of market principles to governance, as I said , the pristine neoliberal governance model. 


You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and imperialism at other times.  I accept that you do so, yet I reject the label you apply to me.

I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in the tussle among those with different set of principles.

avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141203/5e81b1ad/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Dec  3 15:39:04 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 22:39:04 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <547F0C82.5050101@gold.ac.uk>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com> <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca> <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org> <5A0C228F-62BB-4D2C-A060-15812D370B94@consensus.pro> <D0A4A672.9E40C%sylvia@apnic.net> <547E8066.3010306@gsa.com.au> <BD1540E5-55E8-46E0-8159-457C08A369F2@consensus.pro> <547F0C82.5050101@gold.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <547F74E8.2060803@apc.org>

I can confirm that when working on inputs for the NETmundial process I
and a few others drew on the IRP charter along with others that preceded
it, including the APC Charter and the Brazilian principles.

The NETmundial statement is a composite of previous work. Stronger in
one respect in that it clearly says the internet should be governed in
the public interest, and weaker in other respects. But it would not have
been possible to produce something like that without the prior work that
had been done by groups such as the IRP coalition.

I like Wolfgang's proposal and agree it should be in a wiki type format.

And thanks for reminding me of the Wireless for Development book
Sylvia.. that was such a great project!

Anriette

On 03/12/2014 15:13, Marianne Franklin wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Thanks Nick for this timely reminder; and to underscore a formative
> contribution to this set of documents once again, here is the link to
> the IRP Coalition Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the
> Internet, in all 5 languages. More translations on their way.
>
> http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/
>
> Enough people on this list can proudly say they contributed to this
> project, as recognized in subseqnet ones and it in turn developing
> those that came before. Updates on this work coming soon on thIRPC
> list, and elsewhere..
>
> best
> MF
>
> On 03/12/2014 12:59, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>> With respect to this example - and others with a long history that predates the Internet, but which apply fully online, I think you have to start with the source, which is not the NetMundial principles, but international human rights law and the documents that recognise how it applies online.
>>
>>> On 3 Dec 2014, at 04:15, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink at gsa.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Totally support Wolf's suggestion.
>>>
>>> The content in, for example, the Human Rights section should at least cover all the Principles set out in the NetMundial Statement. Each of these Human Rights Principles can be explored in depth by the authors and analyses of other principles added if needed. Importantly, we don't want to overlook any of the existing principles.
>>>
>>> A positive and exciting project!
>>>
>>> Gunela
>>>
>>> Sylvia Cadena said the following on 3/12/14 12:44 :
>>>> That is a great idea. Maybe worth checking some tools/methodology for
>>>> sprint-writing? When I supported the Wireless Networking for the
>>>> Development World book first editions, It was very useful to organize
>>>> the chapters and have sprints to write them and have a whole book ready
>>>> for a specific date. The book has been updated, revamped, translated all
>>>> using the same tool, inviting new authors, adding case studies, etc. On
>>>> the first edition they used Lulu to print on demand, not sure which
>>>> service they are using now.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to read it, whatever shape/form it takes :)
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia
>>>>
>>>> From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
>>>> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
>>>> Reply-To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
>>>> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 4:38 am
>>>> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>>> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
>>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
>>>>
>>>>    +1 and me too on the updating.
>>>>
>>>>    On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>>    <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>    Might be one of those things that is more suited to a wiki or some
>>>>>    other online work that can be updated as necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>    And if one does create one of those with the proper format, it can
>>>>>    be gathered into an ebook or an printed object whenever wanted.
>>>>>
>>>>>    I like the idea of a an online development that combines new
>>>>>    writings with existing writings that is under constant update, and
>>>>>    would be willing to contribute to that sort of ongoing dynamic
>>>>>    effort if we aable to get one organized.
>>>>>
>>>>>    avri
>>>>>    On 01-Dec-14 10:54, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>    The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is
>>>>>>    that a book is static while the IG processes are in a complex,
>>>>>>    difficult dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph"
>>>>>>    of something which would be more or less regularly updated in a
>>>>>>    corresponding collaborative portal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    fraternal regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>>>>>        I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
>>>>>>>        Internet Governance Handbook”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Sala: Let's do this!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to
>>>>>>>    present
>>>>>>>        their own individual points of views so that everybody knows
>>>>>>>    what
>>>>>>>        the positions are. The book could be structured into four
>>>>>>>    main chapters:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy
>>>>>>>    etc.)
>>>>>>>        2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
>>>>>>>        3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
>>>>>>>        infrastructure development etc.)
>>>>>>>        4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG,
>>>>>>>    Diplo,
>>>>>>>        APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter).
>>>>>>>    Each author
>>>>>>>        would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum
>>>>>>>    teen
>>>>>>>        pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would
>>>>>>>    be free
>>>>>>>        to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever
>>>>>>>        position on one of the four main issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into
>>>>>>>    the
>>>>>>>        process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG
>>>>>>>        events ahead of us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex
>>>>>>>    with main
>>>>>>>        official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN
>>>>>>>    Resolutions
>>>>>>>        etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book
>>>>>>>        would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could
>>>>>>>    publish
>>>>>>>        this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book
>>>>>>>    would seen
>>>>>>>        by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution,
>>>>>>>    it would
>>>>>>>        strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder
>>>>>>>        mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+
>>>>>>>    process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six
>>>>>>>        groups) would be the editor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Any comment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Wolfgang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>    <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>>>        To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>>        To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>    You received this message as 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<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia
>>>>
>>>> Join the conversation | https://blog.apnic.net/
>>>>
>>>> —————————————————————————
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia Cadena  |  Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net
>>>> ISIF  Asia Information Society Innovation Fund
>>>>
>>>> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
>>>> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646
>>>> Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
>>>> http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia
>>>>
>>>> sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net
>>>> skype: sylviacadena
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia
>>>> http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia
>>>> Twitter @ISIF_Asia
>>>> ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia
>>>>
>>>> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Gunela Astbrink
>>> GSA InfoComm
>>> PO Box 600
>>> Ballina NSW 2478
>>> Australia
>>> Mobile: +61 417 715738
>>> Email: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au
>>> www.gsa.com.au
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> -- 
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Professor of Global Media & Politics
> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
> Department of Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London 
> New Cross,
> London SE14 6NW
> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
> Email: <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> Twitter: @GloComm
> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
> Steering Commmittee member/former co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> Twitter: @netrights
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
> email: info at irpcharter.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

-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141203/87526b7a/attachment.htm>

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Wed Dec  3 16:28:24 2014
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 22:28:24 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <547F74E8.2060803@apc.org>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com> <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca> <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org> <5A0C228F-62BB-4D2C-A060-15812D370B94@consensus.pro> <D0A4A672.9E40C%sylvia@apnic.net> <547E8066.3010306@gsa.com.au> <BD1540E5-55E8-46E0-8159-457C08A369F2@consensus.pro> <547F0C82.5050101@gold.ac.uk> <547F74E8.2060803@apc.org>
Message-ID: <547F8078.1080808@digitaldissidents.org>

Hi all,

Since many people are not comfortable with editing in a wiki, I am happy
to setup a Confluence instance for this, which is a bit prettier and
easier to navigate for many people. And it also allows exports to epub
and PDF.

I think it's easier to depart from the chapters proposed by Wolgang, if
only because non-human rights people would find it easier to navigate.

       1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
       2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
       3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,     infrastructure development etc.)
       4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)

I agree that it would be great to add all Internet declarations (quite a
number of them have been compared by Carolina Rossini [0]) as an
annotated annex, or even a separate chapter.

Best,

Niels

[0]
http://bestbits.net/issue-comparison-of-major-declarations-on-internet-freedom/

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9


On 12/03/2014 09:39 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> I can confirm that when working on inputs for the NETmundial process I
> and a few others drew on the IRP charter along with others that preceded
> it, including the APC Charter and the Brazilian principles.
>
> The NETmundial statement is a composite of previous work. Stronger in
> one respect in that it clearly says the internet should be governed in
> the public interest, and weaker in other respects. But it would not have
> been possible to produce something like that without the prior work that
> had been done by groups such as the IRP coalition.
>
> I like Wolfgang's proposal and agree it should be in a wiki type format.
>
> And thanks for reminding me of the Wireless for Development book
> Sylvia.. that was such a great project!
>
> Anriette
>
> On 03/12/2014 15:13, Marianne Franklin wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Thanks Nick for this timely reminder; and to underscore a formative
>> contribution to this set of documents once again, here is the link to
>> the IRP Coalition Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the
>> Internet, in all 5 languages. More translations on their way.
>>
>> http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/
>>
>> Enough people on this list can proudly say they contributed to this
>> project, as recognized in subseqnet ones and it in turn developing
>> those that came before. Updates on this work coming soon on thIRPC
>> list, and elsewhere..
>>
>> best
>> MF
>>
>> On 03/12/2014 12:59, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>>> With respect to this example - and others with a long history that predates the Internet, but which apply fully online, I think you have to start with the source, which is not the NetMundial principles, but international human rights law and the documents that recognise how it applies online.
>>>
>>>> On 3 Dec 2014, at 04:15, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink at gsa.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Totally support Wolf's suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> The content in, for example, the Human Rights section should at least cover all the Principles set out in the NetMundial Statement. Each of these Human Rights Principles can be explored in depth by the authors and analyses of other principles added if needed. Importantly, we don't want to overlook any of the existing principles.
>>>>
>>>> A positive and exciting project!
>>>>
>>>> Gunela
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia Cadena said the following on 3/12/14 12:44 :
>>>>> That is a great idea. Maybe worth checking some tools/methodology for
>>>>> sprint-writing? When I supported the Wireless Networking for the
>>>>> Development World book first editions, It was very useful to organize
>>>>> the chapters and have sprints to write them and have a whole book ready
>>>>> for a specific date. The book has been updated, revamped, translated all
>>>>> using the same tool, inviting new authors, adding case studies, etc. On
>>>>> the first edition they used Lulu to print on demand, not sure which
>>>>> service they are using now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to read it, whatever shape/form it takes :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
>>>>> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
>>>>> Reply-To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro
>>>>> <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 4:38 am
>>>>> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>>>> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
>>>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
>>>>>
>>>>>    +1 and me too on the updating.
>>>>>
>>>>>    On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>>>    <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Might be one of those things that is more suited to a wiki or some
>>>>>>    other online work that can be updated as necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    And if one does create one of those with the proper format, it can
>>>>>>    be gathered into an ebook or an printed object whenever wanted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    I like the idea of a an online development that combines new
>>>>>>    writings with existing writings that is under constant update, and
>>>>>>    would be willing to contribute to that sort of ongoing dynamic
>>>>>>    effort if we aable to get one organized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    avri
>>>>>>    On 01-Dec-14 10:54, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>>    The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is
>>>>>>>    that a book is static while the IG processes are in a complex,
>>>>>>>    difficult dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph"
>>>>>>>    of something which would be more or less regularly updated in a
>>>>>>>    corresponding collaborative portal?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    fraternal regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    --c.a.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>>>>>>        I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
>>>>>>>>        Internet Governance Handbook”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Sala: Let's do this!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to
>>>>>>>>    present
>>>>>>>>        their own individual points of views so that everybody knows
>>>>>>>>    what
>>>>>>>>        the positions are. The book could be structured into four
>>>>>>>>    main chapters:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy
>>>>>>>>    etc.)
>>>>>>>>        2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
>>>>>>>>        3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
>>>>>>>>        infrastructure development etc.)
>>>>>>>>        4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG,
>>>>>>>>    Diplo,
>>>>>>>>        APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter).
>>>>>>>>    Each author
>>>>>>>>        would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum
>>>>>>>>    teen
>>>>>>>>        pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would
>>>>>>>>    be free
>>>>>>>>        to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever
>>>>>>>>        position on one of the four main issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into
>>>>>>>>    the
>>>>>>>>        process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG
>>>>>>>>        events ahead of us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex
>>>>>>>>    with main
>>>>>>>>        official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN
>>>>>>>>    Resolutions
>>>>>>>>        etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book
>>>>>>>>        would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could
>>>>>>>>    publish
>>>>>>>>        this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book
>>>>>>>>    would seen
>>>>>>>>        by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution,
>>>>>>>>    it would
>>>>>>>>        strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder
>>>>>>>>        mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+
>>>>>>>>    process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six
>>>>>>>>        groups) would be the editor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        Any comment?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        Wolfgang
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>>    <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>>>>        To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>>>        To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>    You received this message as 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<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia
>>>>>
>>>>> Join the conversation | https://blog.apnic.net/
>>>>>
>>>>> —————————————————————————
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia Cadena  |  Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net
>>>>> ISIF  Asia Information Society Innovation Fund
>>>>>
>>>>> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
>>>>> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646
>>>>> Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
>>>>> http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia
>>>>>
>>>>> sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net
>>>>> skype: sylviacadena
>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia
>>>>> http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia
>>>>> Twitter @ISIF_Asia
>>>>> ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia
>>>>>
>>>>> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Gunela Astbrink
>>>> GSA InfoComm
>>>> PO Box 600
>>>> Ballina NSW 2478
>>>> Australia
>>>> Mobile: +61 417 715738
>>>> Email: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au
>>>> www.gsa.com.au
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> -- 
>> Dr Marianne Franklin
>> Professor of Global Media & Politics
>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>> Department of Media & Communications
>> Goldsmiths, University of London 
>> New Cross,
>> London SE14 6NW
>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
>> Email: <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>> Twitter: @GloComm
>> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
>> Steering Commmittee member/former co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> Twitter: @netrights
>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
>> email: info at irpcharter.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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


-- 

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141203/6c7db078/attachment.htm>

From sylvia at apnic.net  Wed Dec  3 18:40:40 2014
From: sylvia at apnic.net (Sylvia Cadena)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 23:40:40 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <547F74E8.2060803@apc.org>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba>
 <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca> <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org>
 <5A0C228F-62BB-4D2C-A060-15812D370B94@consensus.pro>
 <D0A4A672.9E40C%sylvia@apnic.net> <547E8066.3010306@gsa.com.au>
 <BD1540E5-55E8-46E0-8159-457C08A369F2@consensus.pro>
 <547F0C82.5050101@gold.ac.uk> <547F74E8.2060803@apc.org>
Message-ID: <D0A5DC01.9E6D7%sylvia@apnic.net>

Still is! :) now on its 3rd edition with over 2 million downloads and translated into many languages… the 3rd edition is available in English, French, Burmese and Spanish. http://wndw.net


From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>>
Reply-To: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>>
Date: Thursday, 4 December 2014 6:39 am
To: Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk<mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification

I can confirm that when working on inputs for the NETmundial process I and a few others drew on the IRP charter along with others that preceded it, including the APC Charter and the Brazilian principles.

The NETmundial statement is a composite of previous work. Stronger in one respect in that it clearly says the internet should be governed in the public interest, and weaker in other respects. But it would not have been possible to produce something like that without the prior work that had been done by groups such as the IRP coalition.

I like Wolfgang's proposal and agree it should be in a wiki type format.

And thanks for reminding me of the Wireless for Development book Sylvia.. that was such a great project!

Anriette

On 03/12/2014 15:13, Marianne Franklin wrote:
Dear all

Thanks Nick for this timely reminder; and to underscore a formative contribution to this set of documents once again, here is the link to the IRP Coalition Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet, in all 5 languages. More translations on their way.

http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/

Enough people on this list can proudly say they contributed to this project, as recognized in subseqnet ones and it in turn developing those that came before. Updates on this work coming soon on thIRPC list, and elsewhere..

best
MF

On 03/12/2014 12:59, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

With respect to this example - and others with a long history that predates the Internet, but which apply fully online, I think you have to start with the source, which is not the NetMundial principles, but international human rights law and the documents that recognise how it applies online.



On 3 Dec 2014, at 04:15, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink at gsa.com.au><mailto:g.astbrink at gsa.com.au> wrote:

Totally support Wolf's suggestion.

The content in, for example, the Human Rights section should at least cover all the Principles set out in the NetMundial Statement. Each of these Human Rights Principles can be explored in depth by the authors and analyses of other principles added if needed. Importantly, we don't want to overlook any of the existing principles.

A positive and exciting project!

Gunela

Sylvia Cadena said the following on 3/12/14 12:44 :


That is a great idea. Maybe worth checking some tools/methodology for
sprint-writing? When I supported the Wireless Networking for the
Development World book first editions, It was very useful to organize
the chapters and have sprints to write them and have a whole book ready
for a specific date. The book has been updated, revamped, translated all
using the same tool, inviting new authors, adding case studies, etc. On
the first edition they used Lulu to print on demand, not sure which
service they are using now.

Looking forward to read it, whatever shape/form it takes :)

Sylvia

From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro<mailto:nashton at consensus.pro><mailto:nashton at consensus.pro><mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
Reply-To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro<mailto:nashton at consensus.pro><mailto:nashton at consensus.pro><mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
Date: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 4:38 am
To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification

   +1 and me too on the updating.

   On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
   <mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:



   Hi,

   Might be one of those things that is more suited to a wiki or some
   other online work that can be updated as necessary.

   And if one does create one of those with the proper format, it can
   be gathered into an ebook or an printed object whenever wanted.

   I like the idea of a an online development that combines new
   writings with existing writings that is under constant update, and
   would be willing to contribute to that sort of ongoing dynamic
   effort if we aable to get one organized.

   avri
   On 01-Dec-14 10:54, Carlos Afonso wrote:


   The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is
   that a book is static while the IG processes are in a complex,
   difficult dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph"
   of something which would be more or less regularly updated in a
   corresponding collaborative portal?

   fraternal regards

   --c.a.

   On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:


       I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
       Internet Governance Handbook”.


   Sala: Let's do this!

       This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to
   present
       their own individual points of views so that everybody knows
   what
       the positions are. The book could be structured into four
   main chapters:

       1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy
   etc.)
       2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
       3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
       infrastructure development etc.)
       4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)

       Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG,
   Diplo,
       APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter).
   Each author
       would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum
   teen
       pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would
   be free
       to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever
       position on one of the four main issues.

       Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into
   the
       process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG
       events ahead of us.

       We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex
   with main
       official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN
   Resolutions
       etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book
       would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could
   publish
       this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book
   would seen
       by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution,
   it would
       strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder
       mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+
   process.

       The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six
       groups) would be the editor.

       Any comment?

       Wolfgang



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

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

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

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

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

All the best,

Sylvia

Join the conversation | https://blog.apnic.net/

—————————————————————————

Sylvia Cadena  |  Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net<mailto:sylvia at apnic.net>
ISIF  Asia Information Society Innovation Fund

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646
Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia

sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net<mailto:sylvia at voip.apnic.net>
skype: sylviacadena
https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asiahttp://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia
Twitter @ISIF_Asia
ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia

* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.


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

--
Gunela Astbrink
GSA InfoComm
PO Box 600
Ballina NSW 2478
Australia
Mobile: +61 417 715738
Email: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au<mailto:g.astbrink at gsa.com.au>www.gsa.com.au<http://www.gsa.com.au>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



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


--
Dr Marianne Franklin
Professor of Global Media & Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Department of Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross,
London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
Email: <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk><mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
Twitter: @GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
Steering Commmittee member/former co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org<http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Twitter: @netrights
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
email: info at irpcharter.org<mailto:info at irpcharter.org>



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


--
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org>


All the best,

Sylvia

Join the conversation | https://blog.apnic.net/

—————————————————————————

Sylvia Cadena  |  Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net
ISIF  Asia Information Society Innovation Fund

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646
Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia

sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net
skype: sylviacadena
https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia
http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia
Twitter @ISIF_Asia
ISIF blog http://discover.isif.asia

* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141203/689f9bf4/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Dec  4 09:46:43 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 09:46:43 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Need your input - NETmundial Solutions Map
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAemetRPxufhiuXNqeA4GHn=95=XuwCTdLXPJ03dvrb9Hw@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stefaan Verhulst (NYU) <sv39 at nyu.edu>
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:12 AM
Subject: Need your input - NETmundial Solutions Map
To:


Dear colleague:

Hope all is well! We are reaching out to you for your feedback on the
development of a new tool to enable collaboration on Internet Governance.

The GovLab  <http://thegovlab.org/>(New York University and MIT) and Second
Rise are exploring the creation of a prototype called the “NETmundial
Solutions Map <https://www.netmundial.org/solutions-map>.” The map will aim
to enable coordination on Internet governance issues by providing an open
data-set of what responses exist to what issues, developed by whom and in what
region.

We hope that you can take a few minutes to provide feedback using our
survey, which aims to collect feedback on how users currently find
information on Internet governance. You can find the survey by clicking here
<https://netmundialsolutionsmap.typeform.com/to/bNz4Rc>. For more
background on the overall NETmundial initiative, you can visit their
recently relaunched website: https://www.netmundial.org.

Your input is important to us, and we hope that you can take a moment to
help develop the prototype for the NETmundial Solutions Map in a manner
that would add value to the current eco-system. Please feel free to forward
this to anyone else in your network that may have an interest in how a
internet governance map is designed.

Thank you in advance, and please let me know if you have any questions. As
we progress we will share our findings on the GovLab blog (For instance:
interim findings of our face-to-face interviews
<http://thegovlab.org/do-we-need-a-map-on-the-road-to-distributed-internet-governance-findings-from-interviews/>
can
be found here). We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Stefaan Verhulst & The GovLab Team


-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141204/4389e4ab/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Dec  4 12:04:34 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 09:04:34 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [JoCI] New Issue Published Special Issue: Community
 Informatics and Urban Planning
Message-ID: <1abe01d00fe4$6159f570$240de050$@gmail.com>

While not specifically concerned with Internet Governance several of the articles in this special issue of the Journal of Community Informatics provide interesting and useful insights into what practical, effective bottom-up planning/consultation in supportive of democratic decision making might look like in our increasingly urban, complex and Internet enabled polities.

Readers:

The Journal of Community Informatics has just published its latest issue at http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej. We invite you to review the Table of Contents here and then visit our web site to review articles and items of interest.

Thanks for the continuing interest in our work, Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics, Vancouver CANADA Phone 604-602-0624 gurstein at gmail.com

The Journal of Community Informatics

Vol 10, No 3 (2014): Special Issue: Community Informatics and Urban Planning

Table of Contents

http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/49

Editorial
--------
Community Informatics in Cities: New Catalysts for Urban Change
	Liisa Marjatta Horelli,	David Sadoway

Smart Cities vs. Smart Communities: Empowering Citizens not Market Economics
	Michael Gurstein


Articles
--------
Expanded Urban Planning as a Vehicle for Understanding and Shaping Smart, Liveable Cities
	Aija Staffans,	Liisa Horelli

Rethinking Third Places:  Contemporary Design With Technology
	Nemanja Memarovic,	Sidney Fels,	Junia Anacleto,	Roberto Calderon,	Federico
Gobbo,	John M. Carroll

Augmented Reality or Paper-Based Plans? A comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of their use in participatory processes based on different field tests
	Florian Reinwald,	Martin Berger,	Christop Stoik,	Mario Platzer,	Doris
Damyanovic

Urban cartography for pedestrians
	Konstantinos Chorianopoulos

Exploring the use of PPGIS in self-organizing urban development: Case softGIS in Pacific Beach
	Kaisa Schmidt-Thome,	Sirkku Wallin,	Tiina Laatikainen,	Jonna
Kangasoja,	Marketta Kyttä

Neighborhood Planning of Technology: Physical Meets Digital City from the Bottom-Up with Aging Payphones
	Benjamin Stokes,	François Bar,	Karl Baumann,	Ben Caldwell

Empowering Newcomers with Low-Tech Workshops and High-Tech Analyses
	Katia Balassiano,	Christopher J. Seeger

The ‘Urban Spacebook’ experimental process: Co-designing a Platform for Participation
	Corelia Elena Baibarac


Notes from the field
--------
(Re)Prioritizing Citizens in Smart Cities Governance: Examples of Smart Citizenship from Urban India
	David Sadoway,	Satyarupa Shekhar

Urban Acupuncture in the era on Ubiquitous Media
	Salvatore Iaconesi,	Oriana Persico

ICTS ENCOURAGING CHANGES IN THE CITIZEN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT AND URBAN SPACE: BRAZILIAN EXAMPLES
	Geisa Bugs

Local knowledge and the right to the hybrid city
	Panayotis Antoniadis,	Ileana Apostol

Strengthening the Environmental Third Sector in the Hyper-Digital Era
	Subas P. Dhakal


________________________________________________________________________ The Journal of Community Informatics http://www.ci-journal.net


From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Dec  1 04:12:31 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:12:31 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12FBv87+q1BwEktfhr2FHgb4kEf56r738cRwd7Jv4nXmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org>
 <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <D580144C-2BF4-4E4E-AC1E-8872785B7E85@me.com> <CADFgh12FBv87+q1BwEktfhr2FHgb4kEf56r738cRwd7Jv4nXmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9MUk=ncQ2JU78PPQnV2e4mJF0hSJ-xpY_Af9AiOafr9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

That is a very good idea and worthy undertaking suggested by Wolfgang. And
I don't take Milton's reservations as reservations but in fact as a good
complement (although he seems at the same time to shy away from the idea
that we can actually do this, hiding behind Nnenna in the process ;-)

In effect, the question of having people to agree on the legitimacy of
individuals selected as _CS representatives_ is a different one from what
we need to do here.

So I will reformulate Wolfgang's suggestion in light of Milton's
observations, as follows.

1) The idea would be to map out the different worldviews, goals, ordering
values, perspectives, ideological or theoretical postulates which structure
the positions, stances and speech of CS individuals and groups actually
intervening in the IG space (not a "universal CS").

2) So let's not start with or focus on selecting authors. Rather, we should
start with a collaborative effort to identify and properly label those
worldview/ values/ goals/ perspectives/ ideologies/ theories, etc. One
example is "Social Justice" (we've got that clear enough from JNC, but
still subject to reformulation by its proponents.) What else have we got?
Would you, Milton, argue that we have a "rational actor theory" perspective
here? This may require some online survey tool with people self-identifying
themselves with the relevant labels (we might have to decide under how many
labels an individual can identify him- or herself. Each label should be
followed by one to three sentence description (preferably) just to help
everybody in their self-identification.

What I would advise against is having people who don't share a given
perspective wanting to label that perspective (or agree with it.) For
instance if some among us, on the left side, think a group among us should
be labeled "neo-liberal," that should not matter if the group in question
chooses to label itself differently. The most important thing would be that
the basics and implications of each perspective shall be presented in the
corresponding chapter. Likewise, the people recognizing themselves in a
given perspective would be the ones responsible for drafting its chapter,
and while each chapter may be submitted to our "plenary" for input /
review, this will be with the goal to make the text materially better
wherever it proves necessary but there will be no need for universal
agreement (on values, etc.)

3) Only after we have identify and properly label the fundamental
perspectives among us, will we finalize the overall outline of the volume
and start the drafting process. Again, as far as the worldviews, values and
perspectives, only people who recognize themselves under a label would be
invited to participate in the (initial) drafting of their chapter. So it
will be up to each group to decide whether they will have a collective
drafting process or they will select a few individuals to take charge of
the process or they will set up an editorial group, etc.

4) There will probably be, in addition to the "perspective chapters," some
complementary cross-cutting and thematic chapters. Here is where we may
have to form a group, including but not limited to one member from each
perspective identified, so as to reflect the take of each perspective on
the theme/issue while analyzing it.

I realize that this sounds like a research program and may be a little more
demanding to carry out than just having a group of people from each of our
coalitions to draft a chapter. But I am sure for all the energy we waste in
trying to convince people with a different worldview than our own, the
above would be the most important legacy we can leave to the next
generation of IG wonks within civil society.

Best,

Mawaki
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141201/1d2bf8c2/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Dec  5 07:56:49 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:26:49 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <d9f20a4ab4ef40979ddff7377bda2461@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net> <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net> <547D6067.4090306@acm.org> <d9f20a4ab4ef40979ddff7377bda2461@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5481AB91.8000202@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 03 December 2014 10:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Can I introduce some rationality to this discussion?
>

What would we do without Prof Milton Mueller! Please do lead and direct 
us! More seriously, just stop being arrogant. It is simply annoying.

Now to the content of your email. But before that, I thank and 
congratulate you for fully and clearly responding to the 'Internet is 
neo-liberal' issue when I specifically asked you this question, which I 
agree is something you will in any case normally do.

> First, neo-liberalism is not per se a “vile label” unless you think 
> liberalism is vile, in which case you need to explain to me why you 
> think freedom of thought, expression, association, choice, popular 
> sovereignty and free trade are vile, all of which are the key features 
> of liberalism as an ideology or movement.
>

  Since there is a direct question, nay challenge, let me respond fully. 
Please be so good as to see IT for Change's latest annual report 
<http://www.itforchange.net/ITfC_Annual_Report_2013-14/index.php/Main_Page> 
. At least read the covering statement as the director's report 
<http://www.itforchange.net/ITfC_Annual_Report_2013-14/index.php/Main_Page> 
.
Do we look like we have to defend or justify ourselves with regard to 
freedom of expression, association, choice, popular sovereignty and so 
on. There are specific deep works here with regard to each of them. Yes, 
each one of these ideals that you speak of.  Just to toneake  example, 
we developed a full, new theoretical framework of how digital 
capabilities can enhance informational power, communicative power and 
associational power (our theoretical formulations) of marginalised 
women, especially in terms of their political environments. And this 
framework was worked  and validated through action research in three 
countries over three continents. And that was just one example.

Now, about why would we still rally against neoliberalism, which if the 
above is true you kind of find schizophrenic? Because it is not just us 
but I claim that the majority of 'global' civil society actors today 
both work for these values and rally against neoliberalism. You sure 
know that the World Social Forum was born with anti- neoliberalism as 
its rallying cry. If you dont, see for instance this - 
http://www.wsfindia.org/ , and I quote its very first sentence

"*The World Social Forum is not an organisation,not a united front 
platform, but "…an open meeting place for reflective thinking, 
democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of 
experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and 
movements of civil society that are opposed to neo- liberalism and to 
domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are 
committed to building a society centred on the human person".*

The wikipedia entry on World Social Forum describes it thus

"The World Social Forum prefers to define itself as "an opened space – 
plural, diverse, non-governmental and non-partisan – that stimulates the 
decentralized debate, reflection, proposals building, experiences 
exchange and alliances among movements and organizations engaged in 
concrete actions towards a more solidarity, democratic and fair 
world....a permanent space and process to build alternatives to 
neoliberalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism>."

It also says "some consider the World Social Forum to be a physical 
manifestation of global civil society".

Now, Milton, you do not have to agree to all this, but to dismiss it all 
as irrational, and someone's fancy etc would hardly be appropriate, dont 
you think. This is the meaning in which a very huge number of civil 
society  groups and people use the term, and employ it for there 
political activities, and you simply cannot dismiss this fact.
>
> Neo-liberalism in literal terms
>

It is more of a political term solidly embedded in contemporary history, 
and is best seem in that meaning and text, rather giving it any literal 
interpretations.

> simply refers to the revival of liberal thought that occurred in the 
> 1970s and 1980s (i.e., “neo” + “liberal”) following the economic 
> stagnation brought on by the excesses of the social democracy and 
> regulatory state that emerged in the 1920s and 30s. Whatever you think 
> of the economic liberalizations of that period, it’s pretty hard to 
> argue with the record of stagflation, budget crises of the welfare 
> state, slowing or declining growth, and a record of complete failure 
> by socialist/communist economies that occurred in that period.
>

Yes, it emerged in that period, but you have a very different 
interpretation of 'how and to what end' which is very different from 
that of many others, including mine. There has been welcome 
liberalisation of economies in many places and in many areas, but 
neo-liberalism refers to an extreme and virulent version of a 
marketisation process, which is resisted by most civil society.

> Thus, neo-liberalism does not mean indiscriminate application of 
> market principles to everything, but it did reflect a recognition that 
> many parts of society or the economy which had been exempted from 
> market forces were failing and could be improved through the 
> introduction of competition and market forces.
>

Please see above. Neoliberalism is the extreme virulent kind/ level of 
marketisation of sectors that are not best suited for this purpose - or 
the extent to which they are sought to be marketised is not suitable. 
And with marketisation here we mean also a corresponding erosion of 
policy and regulation in these sectors.

> The centerpiece of neoliberalism was globalization of the economy and 
> free trade. The term neoliberalism was coined as part of the backlash 
> again st trade liberalization and the attempt by certain international 
> institutions to enforce budget constraints and sectoral liberalization 
> policies on developing countries as a condition for receiving loans or 
> aid. This is where some of the abuses or harder hands of the 
> Washington approach to liberalization could be felt; sometimes the 
> cookie-cutter approach to policy that was imposed was inappropriate. 
> But for the most part, that period saw rapid worldwide growth and 
> development. In particular, China and India opened their economies to 
> market forces and grew tremendously as a result.
>

Yes, but their is a difference between genuine controlled opening up, as 
in subject to due policy/ public interest processes, and the desire to 
be liberated from the latter, more or less entirely, which would be 
entering the space of what is called as neoliberalism. Milton, you will 
simply have to make this distinction. You cannot claim all the good that 
has happened in the last few decades as benefits of neoliberalism, in a 
take-all-or-leave-all approach.

> When I say that the Internet was a product of neoliberal policies I am 
> referring to several largely indisputable facts:
>
> a)Prior to ‘neoliberal’ policies the telecom system was the epitome of 
> social democracy: it was run as a state-owned monopoly, market forces 
> were largely absent.
>

Yes, communications infrastructure was expensive, with inconsistent 
revenue opportunities, had a natural monopoly characteristic, and so 
on... For this reason it being run as by the public sector was often the 
norm. Most of them did not change fast enough as rapid, and often 
transformational, technology changes took place, and were washed away 
because of it. This happened almost everywhere across the world, which 
does not means that in that decade or two all the concerned governments 
become neoliberal. The same governments made so much lesser changes in 
other sectors. So there was something also quite unique to the ICT 
sector, and I suspect, everyone knows that, a technology windfall did 
happen.

> b)The developmental record of state-owned PTT monopolies was abysmal, 
> there were 1% - 10% penetration rates, 6 months waiting lists for 
> service, massive inefficiency and protectionism. Opponents of 
> neoliberalism need to own up to this.
>

Yes and so, See above.. Neolibs cannot claim all the benefits of digital 
technologies windfall for themselves... It is more of tech windfall that 
made the huge transformation, and also changed  the organisational 
requirements around ICT infrastructure, for instance wireless 
technologies significantly reduced the 'natural monopoly' characteristic 
of ICT infrastructure. Those who made those organisational adjustments 
faster gained more, but as you have seen, an overwhelming countries have 
done it, without declaring themselves as fully neolib.

> c)Competition stimulated rapid improvements in technology and massive 
> decreases in pricing for telecom services
>
> d)Free trade agreements for IT equipment and “information services” 
> made it possible for TCP/IP based services to spread rapidly across 
> the world regardless of state censorship or regulation
>

Again, the picture is mixed. Brazil never signed the IT Agreement that 
you refer to, but isnt doing badly. India signed but have recently been 
ruing  the fact becuase its electronic hardware import today is next 
only to oil import, and there is practically zero local hardware 
industry. India is now making full use of the exceptions clauses in the 
ITA.

> In short, if you care about prosperity, growth, economic development 
> and freedom,
>

I will leave unsubstantiated rhetoric aside...

> and you want to have an intelligent discussion
>

:).. Sorry, we down here are generally daft, you just have to put up 
with us...

> of the role of public policy in the internet economy, all these things 
> need to be taken into account.
>



> If you want to call people names, I’m not interested.
>

Milton, first, saying that the WEF centred NMI is a neoliberal thing is 
not name calling, we never referred to any person here. And second, do 
you realise that you frequently do name calling directly for specific 
persons, using terms like leftist, or even communist, and in fact in 
this email making references to lack of rationality and intelligence of 
some... That is name calling.

parminder

> --MM
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:47 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
>
> On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:
>
>     Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles
>     to everything, including those areas in which such principles are
>     not normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the
>     application of market principles to governance, as I said , the
>     pristine neoliberal governance model.
>
>
> You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and 
> feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and 
> imperialism at other times. I accept that you do so, yet I reject the 
> label you apply to me.
>
> I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in 
> the tussle among those with different set of principles.
>
> avri
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141205/52fcf589/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Dec  5 08:09:36 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:39:36 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <d7744868764646f4ab75eb02509155f0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net> <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net> <547D6067.4090306@acm.org>,<d9f20a4ab4ef40979ddff7377bda2461@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <d7744868764646f4ab75eb02509155f0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5481AE90.80702@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 04 December 2014 12:35 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
>
> You are being too kind in describing the abject failure of those past 
> non-neo-liberal policies, which had truly vile effects.
>
>
> Waiting lists stretched up to...12 years...for a simple landline 
> phone, in admittedly 'worst' cases.
>
>
> Post-liberalization entry of mobile phones uncovered such extreme 
> unmet demand that 1st mobiles (with service subscription) could sell 
> for up to $50,000 - 20 years ago, in one case I am familiar with. Yeah 
> that's right, when all one could do with a mobile was make a call.
>


Lee

If you/ Milton would claim deregulation of the communication sector in 
1990s and 2000s  as a final triumph of neoliberalism then would you call 
the recent call by most US civil society groups, and also by your 
President, for re-regulating the Internet as a tier 2 (telecom) service, 
as the US slipping into socialism... Just for the sake of consistency 
perhaps :) . And perhaps to take from the 'Internet is neoliberal', 
epithet of Milton, can we say that the Internet is now on the way to 
becoming socialist..

Remember, it is Milton that proposed the neoliberal - socialist binary, 
and you seem to be supporting it. I am just further exploring the 
possible implications of that binary.

parminder

>
> Lee
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Milton L Mueller 
> <mueller at syr.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 12:10 PM
> *To:* 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'
> *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
>
> Can I introduce some rationality to this discussion?
>
> First, neo-liberalism is not per se a “vile label” unless you think 
> liberalism is vile, in which case you need to explain to me why you 
> think freedom of thought, expression, association, choice, popular 
> sovereignty and free trade are vile, all of which are the key features 
> of liberalism as an ideology or movement.
>
> Neo-liberalism in literal terms simply refers to the revival of 
> liberal thought that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s (i.e., “neo” + 
> “liberal”) following the economic stagnation brought on by the 
> excesses of the social democracy and regulatory state that emerged in 
> the 1920s and 30s. Whatever you think of the economic liberalizations 
> of that period, it’s pretty hard to argue with the record of 
> stagflation, budget crises of the welfare state, slowing or declining 
> growth, and a record of complete failure by socialist/communist 
> economies that occurred in that period.
>
> Thus, neo-liberalism does not mean indiscriminate application of 
> market principles to everything, but it did reflect a recognition that 
> many parts of society or the economy which had been exempted from 
> market forces were failing and could be improved through the 
> introduction of competition and market forces.
>
> The centerpiece of neoliberalism was globalization of the economy and 
> free trade. The term neoliberalism was coined as part of the backlash 
> against trade liberalization and the attempt by certain international 
> institutions to enforce budget constraints and sectoral liberalization 
> policies on developing countries as a condition for receiving loans or 
> aid. This is where some of the abuses or harder hands of the 
> Washington approach to liberalization could be felt; sometimes the 
> cookie-cutter approach to policy that was imposed was inappropriate. 
> But for the most part, that period saw rapid worldwide growth and 
> development. In particular, China and India opened their economies to 
> market forces and grew tremendously as a result.
>
> When I say that the Internet was a product of neoliberal policies I am 
> referring to several largely indisputable facts:
>
> a)Prior to ‘neoliberal’ policies the telecom system was the epitome of 
> social democracy: it was run as a state-owned monopoly, market forces 
> were largely absent.
>
> b)The developmental record of state-owned PTT monopolies was abysmal, 
> there were 1% - 10% penetration rates, 6 months waiting lists for 
> service, massive inefficiency and protectionism. Opponents of 
> neoliberalism need to own up to this.
>
> c)Competition stimulated rapid improvements in technology and massive 
> decreases in pricing for telecom services
>
> d)Free trade agreements for IT equipment and “information services” 
> made it possible for TCP/IP based services to spread rapidly across 
> the world regardless of state censorship or regulation
>
> In short, if you care about prosperity, growth, economic development 
> and freedom, and you want to have an intelligent discussion of the 
> role of public policy in the internet economy, all these things need 
> to be taken into account. If you want to call people names, I’m not 
> interested.
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:47 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
>
> On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:
>
>     Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles
>     to everything, including those areas in which such principles are
>     not normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the
>     application of market principles to governance, as I said , the
>     pristine neoliberal governance model.
>
>
> You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and 
> feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and 
> imperialism at other times.  I accept that you do so, yet I reject the 
> label you apply to me.
>
> I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in 
> the tussle among those with different set of principles.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141205/3221026d/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sun Dec  7 21:26:26 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 02:26:26 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <5481AE90.80702@itforchange.net>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22>
 <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net>
 <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net>
 <547CE824.1040908@acm.org> <547D5E6C.1090409@itforchange.net>
 <547D6067.4090306@acm.org>,<d9f20a4ab4ef40979ddff7377bda2461@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
 <d7744868764646f4ab75eb02509155f0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>,<5481AE90.80702@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <fb2cde57bf7749a2997bf84ef849d05e@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder,


I do agree that the pendulum swing of liberalization/deregulation of the late 70s (starting with airlines)/80s/90s/2000s may be seen as having run its course in the widespread calls and enthusiasm for 1930s telco re-regulation in the US; and the European Parliament, and elsewhere. Also known as the Title II issue. On other hand, odds of the FCC actually..listening to the President and not their Congressional budget-approving overseers...may have shifted post-mid-term election; similar to the Euro shift now underway led by Merkel's recent not-neutral statements.


So what label to put on the present era other than schizophrenic, which may be insulting to people with mental health challenges, I do not know, but agree that socialism is not the right term.


Nostalgia for the state when most folks are anti-state (and net) intrusions into their lives...is a condition for which I know neither the correct term nor cure, I admit. My own suggestion of a need for 'hybrid HetNet regulation' commencing with a Title I approach I explain a bit further below.


But still admittedly many are longing for an expanded role of the state in setting terms of trade for bit markets aka the net neutraility delusion (and I have already apologized in advance to anyone suffering from that or other delusional symptoms ; ) - at the same time many are afraid of the expansive role of the state in digital surveillance and in that sphere advocating for a more limited role of the state...except in select matters of national security, with each speaker and state wishing to carve their own exceptions. (Which in the case of North Korea apparently includes hacking Hollywood studios which dare make fun of...the dearest socialist leader still standing? ; )


Anyway, I do agree with you Parminder that the wave of digital technologies unfolding over the past decades has much to do with all of this, and neo-liberalism cannot take more than a share of the credit or blame depending upon one's perspective. But I also assume you are also not a technological determinist, and agree with me that human societies have shaped those technologies over time and will do so in future as well, whatever label we apply to the past and present.


While deregulation implies that things were previously regulated, I agree it does not presume a particular philosophy of governance.


Still, from a historical perspective, the coincidence of... the emergence of an Internet economy; the launch of the WTO and growth in global trade in services in the 1990s; and I admit, the extreme pressure the US government and we might also admit, allied capitalist institutions and economic forces encouraging/insisting governments to privatize their telecoms infrastructures first, and establish legal frameworks enabling national digital economies to emerge, I do agree with Milton, was not a coincidence.


Speaking as someone who was slammed online 20 years ago for helping organize workshops to discuss...gasp, the at the time the heretical notion (for some) that things might be bought and sold on the Internet, I do not mind being called out again for the same - neoliberal/pro-digital markets AND pro-information society sins! ; )


I do agree with you that it was a failure of state institutions whether in post-socialist Eastern Europe, or just state-owned cash cows milked and mismanaged in many other nations, which made the transition so abrupt.  But even where states were doing a good job managing their telco, that was not sufficient to enable a digital economy - and information society - to emerge; and heads of state of various political persuasions recognized this. The neoliberal 'law and economics' approach may not be without its limitations, but fit the times and technology.


I also agree with you that the advent of mobile telephony made it far easier to introduce competition and choice. Except...mobiles were invented decades earlier and only took off when...the European market was liberalized for cross-border entry and competition.


Anyway, as to labels, this is the label I am talking about now: 'Hybrid HetNet Regulation.'


Since, technically speaking, that is actually what (most) people mean/are concerned with when they apply terms like Net Neutrality to...hybrid heterogeneous networks.


So yes, I do expect hybrid heterogeneous networks, and over the top digital services to be regulated, but how precisely, ah that is indeed the gazillion dollar/future information society-defining question.


Letting NetFlix, the current biggest bandwidth hog of the US and Europe, and - coincidentally? the most vocal Title II advocate in the US - define our common futures, I suggest is unwise. Especially since they have recently been caught out in classic sleazy market-regulation manipulating behaviors...which indicates they are acting much more typically capitalist and less socialist in their calls for Title II regulation than some understand.


Sorry for the long-winded and not simple answer to your question: but in short, if you recall the film 'Brazil'...that's kind of feel I have for our present era ; )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wh2b1eZFUM


best,


Lee


PS:

My recent conference paper touching on some of these issues is at:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265599051_Over_the_Virtual_Top._Digital_Service_Value_Chain_Disintermediation_Implications_for_Hybrid_Hetnet_Regulation?ev=prf_pub





________________________________
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 8:09 AM
To: Lee W McKnight; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br


On Thursday 04 December 2014 12:35 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

Milton,


You are being too kind in describing the abject failure of those past non-neo-liberal policies, which had truly vile effects.


Waiting lists stretched up to...12 years...for a simple landline phone, in admittedly 'worst' cases.


Post-liberalization entry of mobile phones uncovered such extreme unmet demand that 1st mobiles (with service subscription) could sell for up to $50,000 - 20 years ago, in one case I am familiar with. Yeah that's right, when all one could do with a mobile was make a call.


Lee

If you/ Milton would claim deregulation of the communication sector in 1990s and 2000s  as a final triumph of neoliberalism then would you call the recent call by most US civil society groups, and also by your President, for re-regulating the Internet as a tier 2 (telecom) service, as the US slipping into socialism... Just for the sake of consistency perhaps :) . And perhaps to take from the 'Internet is neoliberal', epithet of Milton, can we say that the Internet is now on the way to becoming socialist..

Remember, it is Milton that proposed the neoliberal - socialist binary, and you seem to be supporting it. I am just further exploring the possible implications of that binary.

parminder



Lee



________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu><mailto:mueller at syr.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 12:10 PM
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>'
Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br

Can I introduce some rationality to this discussion?

First, neo-liberalism is not per se a “vile label” unless you think liberalism is vile, in which case you need to explain to me why you think freedom of thought, expression, association, choice, popular sovereignty and free trade are vile, all of which are the key features of liberalism as an ideology or movement.

Neo-liberalism in literal terms simply refers to the revival of liberal thought that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s (i.e., “neo” + “liberal”) following the economic stagnation brought on by the excesses of the social democracy and regulatory state that emerged in the 1920s and 30s. Whatever you think of the economic liberalizations of that period, it’s pretty hard to argue with the record of stagflation, budget crises of the welfare state, slowing or declining growth, and a record of complete failure by socialist/communist economies that occurred in that period.

Thus, neo-liberalism does not mean indiscriminate application of market principles to everything, but it did reflect a recognition that many parts of society or the economy which had been exempted from market forces were failing and could be improved through the introduction of competition and market forces.

The centerpiece of neoliberalism was globalization of the economy and free trade. The term neoliberalism was coined as part of the backlash against trade liberalization and the attempt by certain international institutions to enforce budget constraints and sectoral liberalization policies on developing countries as a condition for receiving loans or aid. This is where some of the abuses or harder hands of the Washington approach to liberalization could be felt; sometimes the cookie-cutter approach to policy that was imposed was inappropriate. But for the most part, that period saw rapid worldwide growth and development. In particular, China and India opened their economies to market forces and grew tremendously as a result.

When I say that the Internet was a product of neoliberal policies I am referring to several largely indisputable facts:

a)      Prior to ‘neoliberal’ policies the telecom system was the epitome of social democracy: it was run as a state-owned monopoly, market forces were largely absent.

b)      The developmental record of state-owned PTT monopolies was abysmal, there were 1% - 10% penetration rates, 6 months waiting lists for service, massive inefficiency and protectionism. Opponents of neoliberalism need to own up to this.

c)       Competition stimulated rapid improvements in technology and massive decreases in pricing for telecom services

d)      Free trade agreements for IT equipment and “information services” made it possible for TCP/IP based services to spread rapidly across the world regardless of state censorship or regulation

In short, if you care about prosperity, growth, economic development and freedom, and you want to have an intelligent discussion of the role of public policy in the internet economy, all these things need to be taken into account. If you want to call people names, I’m not interested.

--MM

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:47 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br


On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:
Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles to everything, including those areas in which such principles are not normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the application of market principles to governance, as I said , the pristine neoliberal governance model.

You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and imperialism at other times.  I accept that you do so, yet I reject the label you apply to me.

I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in the tussle among those with different set of principles.

avri



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141208/01fd630e/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Mon Dec  8 05:33:49 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 11:33:49 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] An Uptade on the NMI from ISOC
In-Reply-To: <1418032799.69121.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <1418032799.69121.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6D3BC7F3-C4FB-4F6F-801B-43DF088F085B@theglobaljournal.net>

Well, I believe Kathy Brown's post is rather explicit: ISOC is still not close from joining NMI:

While the CGI "Further Clarification" brings more clarity to the discussions and is a positive step forward, it is fair to say that issues, including the need for the NMI Council, its selection, financial transparency and long-term objectives and goals, remain.

There is little to no doubt, that CGIbr's clarification came after the Brazilian government expressed some concerns, in particular regarding respective roles, and governmental contributions. This CGIbr clarification reaffirms the
role of states as envisaged in the Tunis Agenda, and confirms the Just Net Coalition's understanding that the Netmudial outcome reaffirmed that role. Please refer to (7) of the clarification, which states:

"7) Any questions or proposed solutions involving the government sector,
such as cybercrime, for example, must necessarily be brought to the
attention of national governments and / or be channeled to existing or
planned international processes. This procedure is consistent with the
provisions of the NETmundial Declaration, which recognizes that certain
issues require international treatment, taking into account the role and
responsibility of governments on specific topics related to their
sovereignty; but at the same time reaffirms the need, even in these cases,
that the discussions take place in a multistakeholder format."

Everyone should listen to Rousseff's UN speech, and the emphasize she put on multilateralism and the roles of governance in regard to protect the rights of citizen, including the long list we are all well acquainted with. From Rousseff's stance to NM, there is an incredible stretch that first look like a victory for the multistakeholder ideology. Maybe, now that Rousseff is back in her seat, she and others at Brazilian government begin to realize what happen and are backing up. Who knows? This reminder is not to say that, in my personal capacity, or JNC's, I am supporting an excessive role for governments in any future Digital framework of national and transnational overarching system or mechanism based on the rule of law, whether national or international law. But indeed we have to acknowledge their specific role (responsibilities and duties) to their citizens (having constructive discussions and debates).



Le 8 déc. 2014 à 10:59, Arsene TUNGALI a écrit :

> Just in case you haven't read this.
> 
> This becomes More and more interesting. The debate continues on whether to participate or not to.
> 
> A message from ISOC re NMI: http://www.internetsociety.org/node/344730
> 
> Can we say that the ISOC is on it's way to join thr NMI?
> 
> Surely more is to come. Whatch out!
> 
> Regards,
> A
> 
> ------------------
> Arsene Tungali,
> Executive Director, Rudi International
> www.rudiinternational.org
> 
> Founder, Mabingwa Forum
> www.mabingwa-forum.com
> Phone:+243993810967
> 
> ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance.
> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141208/163f40c5/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Mon Dec  8 05:43:45 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 11:43:45 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] An Uptade on the NMI from ISOC
In-Reply-To: <6D3BC7F3-C4FB-4F6F-801B-43DF088F085B@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <1418032799.69121.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <6D3BC7F3-C4FB-4F6F-801B-43DF088F085B@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <DF578B8A-8508-4815-916B-0087C3405446@theglobaljournal.net>

Just for clarity, I am sure everyone will read me well when I write:

"This reminder is not to say that, in my personal capacity, or JNC's, I am supporting an excessive role for governments in any future Digital framework"

it means

" I am NOT supporting an excessive role for governments in any future Digital framework"

;-)



Le 8 déc. 2014 à 11:33, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal a écrit :

> Well, I believe Kathy Brown's post is rather explicit: ISOC is still not close from joining NMI:
> 
> While the CGI "Further Clarification" brings more clarity to the discussions and is a positive step forward, it is fair to say that issues, including the need for the NMI Council, its selection, financial transparency and long-term objectives and goals, remain.
> 
> There is little to no doubt, that CGIbr's clarification came after the Brazilian government expressed some concerns, in particular regarding respective roles, and governmental contributions. This CGIbr clarification reaffirms the
> role of states as envisaged in the Tunis Agenda, and confirms the Just Net Coalition's understanding that the Netmudial outcome reaffirmed that role. Please refer to (7) of the clarification, which states:
> 
> "7) Any questions or proposed solutions involving the government sector,
> such as cybercrime, for example, must necessarily be brought to the
> attention of national governments and / or be channeled to existing or
> planned international processes. This procedure is consistent with the
> provisions of the NETmundial Declaration, which recognizes that certain
> issues require international treatment, taking into account the role and
> responsibility of governments on specific topics related to their
> sovereignty; but at the same time reaffirms the need, even in these cases,
> that the discussions take place in a multistakeholder format."
> 
> Everyone should listen to Rousseff's UN speech, and the emphasize she put on multilateralism and the roles of governance in regard to protect the rights of citizen, including the long list we are all well acquainted with. From Rousseff's stance to NM, there is an incredible stretch that first look like a victory for the multistakeholder ideology. Maybe, now that Rousseff is back in her seat, she and others at Brazilian government begin to realize what happen and are backing up. Who knows? This reminder is not to say that, in my personal capacity, or JNC's, I am supporting an excessive role for governments in any future Digital framework of national and transnational overarching system or mechanism based on the rule of law, whether national or international law. But indeed we have to acknowledge their specific role (responsibilities and duties) to their citizens (having constructive discussions and debates).
> 
> 
> 
> Le 8 déc. 2014 à 10:59, Arsene TUNGALI a écrit :
> 
>> Just in case you haven't read this.
>> 
>> This becomes More and more interesting. The debate continues on whether to participate or not to.
>> 
>> A message from ISOC re NMI: http://www.internetsociety.org/node/344730
>> 
>> Can we say that the ISOC is on it's way to join thr NMI?
>> 
>> Surely more is to come. Whatch out!
>> 
>> Regards,
>> A
>> 
>> ------------------
>> Arsene Tungali,
>> Executive Director, Rudi International
>> www.rudiinternational.org
>> 
>> Founder, Mabingwa Forum
>> www.mabingwa-forum.com
>> Phone:+243993810967
>> 
>> ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance.
>> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
>> 
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141208/00a7ae59/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Dec  8 05:39:14 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 11:39:14 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Reminder of NETmundial Initiative nomination deadline:
 15 December
Message-ID: <1CFC0649-13A4-4C2D-9ACB-9E11186488D1@eff.org>

Currently few civil society representatives have nominated themselves to the Coordination Council of the NETmundial Initiative - in part this is due to dissatisfaction with the initiative, but even some of those who had previous expressed enthusiasm or interest have not nominated themselves.  In case this was an oversight, you have a few more days to do so.  Please use the nomination form here:

https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations

If you need any help or have any questions, let me know. Thanks.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141208/cad4e6b8/attachment.htm>

From arbih2002us at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  8 08:49:07 2014
From: arbih2002us at yahoo.com (arbih2002us at yahoo.com)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 14:49:07 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] An Uptade on the NMI from ISOC
Message-ID: <da5egwm03lnguqcg6qdsqj8n.1418043722587@email.android.com>

Greetings every one!
I am relatively new to these discussions.  But I if Government is not actively involved how will the human rights violations on the Internet be enforced?  What structure does civil society have to protect these rights?  
Please I need to understand. 
Someone help me. 
Dr. Lorin S. Ekpe
President medical women association crs


Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> 
Date: 08/12/2014  11:43  (GMT+01:00) 
To: Governance IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Cc: Arsene TUNGALI <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] An Uptade on the NMI from ISOC 
 
Just for clarity, I am sure everyone will read me well when I write:

"This reminder is not to say that, in my personal capacity, or JNC's, I am supporting an excessive role for governments in any future Digital framework"

it means

" I am NOT supporting an excessive role for governments in any future Digital framework"

;-)



Le 8 déc. 2014 à 11:33, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal a écrit :

Well, I believe Kathy Brown's post is rather explicit: ISOC is still not close from joining NMI:

While the CGI "Further Clarification" brings more clarity to the discussions and is a positive step forward, it is fair to say that issues, including the need for the NMI Council, its selection, financial transparency and long-term objectives and goals, remain.

There is little to no doubt, that CGIbr's clarification came after the Brazilian government expressed some concerns, in particular regarding respective roles, and governmental contributions. This CGIbr clarification reaffirms the
role of states as envisaged in the Tunis Agenda, and confirms the Just Net Coalition's understanding that the Netmudial outcome reaffirmed that role. Please refer to (7) of the clarification, which states:

"7) Any questions or proposed solutions involving the government sector,
such as cybercrime, for example, must necessarily be brought to the
attention of national governments and / or be channeled to existing or
planned international processes. This procedure is consistent with the
provisions of the NETmundial Declaration, which recognizes that certain
issues require international treatment, taking into account the role and
responsibility of governments on specific topics related to their
sovereignty; but at the same time reaffirms the need, even in these cases,
that the discussions take place in a multistakeholder format."

Everyone should listen to Rousseff's UN speech, and the emphasize she put on multilateralism and the roles of governance in regard to protect the rights of citizen, including the long list we are all well acquainted with. From Rousseff's stance to NM, there is an incredible stretch that first look like a victory for the multistakeholder ideology. Maybe, now that Rousseff is back in her seat, she and others at Brazilian government begin to realize what happen and are backing up. Who knows? This reminder is not to say that, in my personal capacity, or JNC's, I am supporting an excessive role for governments in any future Digital framework of national and transnational overarching system or mechanism based on the rule of law, whether national or international law. But indeed we have to acknowledge their specific role (responsibilities and duties) to their citizens (having constructive discussions and debates).



Le 8 déc. 2014 à 10:59, Arsene TUNGALI a écrit :

Just in case you haven't read this.

This becomes More and more interesting. The debate continues on whether to participate or not to.

A message from ISOC re NMI: http://www.internetsociety.org/node/344730

Can we say that the ISOC is on it's way to join thr NMI?

Surely more is to come. Whatch out!

Regards,
A

------------------
Arsene Tungali,
Executive Director, Rudi International
www.rudiinternational.org

Founder, Mabingwa Forum
www.mabingwa-forum.com
Phone:+243993810967

ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance.
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141208/b388fc0f/attachment.htm>

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Mon Dec  8 15:14:03 2014
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 15:14:03 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Organic Net Neutrality: David Weinberger
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx1K5BOFZKNzZN_b-kdKxJEOY-jnQanUaT1GpzKoxziVw@mail.gmail.com>

David Weinberger coins a term and makes a critical point:


Organic Net Neutrality
> https://ting.com/blog/organic-net-neutrality/


There are two types of Net Neutrality. Supporters of it (like me)
spend most of their time arguing for Artificial Net Neutrality: a
government policy that regulates the few dominant providers of access
to the Internet. In fact, we should be spending more of our time
reminding people that before Artificial Net Neutrality the Internet
came by its neutrality naturally, even organically.

To see the difference, you have to keep in mind, (as my friend Doc
Searls frequently reminds me) that Net Neutrality refers not only to a
policy but to a fundamental characteristic of the Internet. The
Internet is an inter-network: local networks agree to pass data
(divided into packets) without discriminating among them, so that no
matter what participating network you’re plugged into, you can always
get and send information anywhere else on the Net. That’s the magic of
the Net: It doesn’t care how you’ve plugged in, where you are, or what
sort of information you’re looking for. It will all get to you, no
matter where it’s coming from, what it’s about, or what type of
application created it.

In fact, it’s because the creators of the Internet didn’t try to
anticipate what people would use it for that it has become the
greatest engine of creativity and wealth in recorded history. For
example, if the Internet had been designed primarily for connecting
static pages, it would have become less suitable for phone calls or
video. If the current Internet access providers decide that videos are
their highest priority traffic, then online games might suffer, and it
would be harder to establish the next new idea — maybe it’s holograms
or some new high-def audio stream or a web of astronomers working on
data shared around the world.

In short, we don’t want the businesses that sell us access to the
Internet to have the power to decide what gets priority on the
Internet…especially since many of them are also in the content
business and thus would be tempted to give preference to their own
videos and music streams. Artificial Net Neutrality as a policy is
intended to preserve the Internet’s non-discriminatory nature by
regulating the access providers.

Even the most fervent supporters of Net Neutrality policies usually
favor it only because we now have so few access providers (also known
as Internet Service Providers, or ISPs). Before a series of decisions
by the U.S. Federal Communications Commision beginning in 2002, and a
ruling by the Supreme Court in 2005, there were more than 9,000 ISPs
in that country. Now the ones that remain are either serving small,
often remote, areas or are one of the tiny handful of absolute giants.

When you talk about Net Neutrality with Seth Johnson, a tireless
advocate presently working at the international level to defend the
Internet, he explains that before 2005, when there was a vibrant,
competitive market for ISPs, the Internet was naturally neutral. Back
when the Internet was composed of relatively small local networks, if
an ISP wanted to promise its subscribers that it would provide a “fast
lane” for movies, or games, or singing telegrams, or whatever, it
could only provide that favorable discrimination within its own small
network. The many other networks those packets passed through wouldn’t
know or care about that one network’s preferences. Zipping packets
through the last couple of miles to your house would be like speeding
up a jet for the last hundred meters of its flight: it wouldn’t make
any noticeable difference.

That was then. We need a Net Neutrality policy now because the giant
ISPs’ own networks are so extensive that a packet of data may spend
most of its time within a single network. That network can institute
discriminatory practices that are noticeable. A Net Neutrality policy
prevents them from giving in to this commercial temptation.

Many of us Net Neutrality advocates, including Seth and Doc, would far
rather see the Internet’s natural infrastructure restored — a big
network composed of many smaller networks — which would in turn
restore natural Net Neutrality. We lost that infrastructure through a
political process. We could get it back the same way, by once again
treating the wires and cables through which Internet packets flow as a
public resource, open to thousands of competing ISPs, none of which
would be able to effectively discriminate among packets.

It’s a shame that we’ve let the market for ISPs become so
non-competitive that we have to resort to government policies to
preserve the Net’s natural neutrality. As with peaches and whole
grains, an organically neutral Internet would be even better for the
entire system.

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Tue Dec  9 15:21:11 2014
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:21:11 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Balance between privacy and security- Kenyan new
 security Bill
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeGoPrj9X9CMoy-6rezoL09wQYhtUYP6Ufr-XC4iVVorsw@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies for cross posting,

http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2014/12/investigative-journalists-on-the-spot-in-new-security-bill/

"The Bill also proposes to allow the National Security Organs to intercept
communication for the purpose of detecting, deterring and disrupting
terrorism and related activities."

"Owing to the fact that the National Assembly will be going on recess on
Thursday coupled with the urgent need to contain the security situation in
the country, the House has in the meantime approved that debate on this
Bill be fast tracked, with publication period shortened from 14 days to
just a day.

Public debate on these proposals is due Wednesday.
​"​




--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
PGP: E6BA8DC1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141209/4cd8679a/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Dec 10 08:00:23 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:30:23 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] UN Secretary General's report on the SDG process
Message-ID: <548843E7.6010806@itforchange.net>

The UN Secretary General has issued an important report on the SDGs 
process titled "/The Road to Dignity for All: Ending Poverty, 
Transforming 
<http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5527SR_advance%20unedited_final.pdf>All 
<http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5527SR_advance%20unedited_final.pdf>Lives 
and Protecting the Planet 
<http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5527SR_advance%20unedited_final.pdf>/" 
. It is now open for responses 
<http://ngosbeyond2014.org/articles/2014/12/6/call-for-civil-society-responses-to-the-un-secretary-general.html>. 


/IT for Change submitted these comments 
<http://www.itforchange.net/Response_to_the_synthesis_report_of_the_UN_Secretary-General_on_the_Post-2015_Development_Agenda#comments>/, 
specifically on ICTs and data issues. Here, we highlight the need to 
especially recognise ICTs as a general purpose technology which is 
transforming our societies today and the need to ensure their universal 
availability as well as an open and equitable technical architecture of 
all ICTs, including the Internet. We also comment on some of the 
initiatives proposed by the Secretary General on data for sustainable 
development, and suggest some additional measures that will turn the 
face of the digital revolution towards serving the public good from the 
currently dominant trend of proprietisation of public data resources and 
use of data for mass surveillance and social control .

In this context, please do read the very significant report of an SG's 
advisory expert group on employing the data revolution for sustainable 
development, "/A World that Counts: Mobilizing the Data Revolution for 
Sustainable Development / 
<http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf>" 
.

I consider this report to be of outstanding significance. First time a 
global report deals with big data as a public resource, an issue 
entirely missed in the IG related civil society discussions and reports 
on data issues. All these discussions and reports have just seen big 
data from a privacy angle. However, the role of data as a resource, and 
its (mostly, mis-) appropriations as a private resource while the basic 
nature of much of it could actually be determined as 'public', is as 
important an issue. This report for the first time, at least at this 
level, frames the issue of big data as a public resource. It also calls 
for "building of a global consensus, applicable principles and standards 
for data".

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141210/ec50a9f0/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Mon Dec  1 04:26:34 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 10:26:34 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <547C344A.9070808@acm.org>


On 01-Dec-14 04:56, Guru wrote:
> The reason why many of us are concerned about Brazil participation in
> a space (WEF) that 'belongs' to the business elite of the world, is
> simply that many of us consider Brazil a global leader in supporting
> policies programmes for social justice, human rights, democracy. 

And maybe they have come to the realization that is better to work with
the so-called elite and work to change them, than it is to remain on the
outside and vilify them.  Vilification may feel good and may make one
feel morally superior, but it gains very little in the long run except
for constant strife and division among ourselves.

avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141201/b9d7de73/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Dec 10 08:07:56 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:37:56 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] UN Secretary General's report on the SDG process
In-Reply-To: <548843E7.6010806@itforchange.net>
References: <548843E7.6010806@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <548845AC.2070807@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 10 December 2014 06:30 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> The UN Secretary General has issued an important report on the SDGs 
> process titled "/The Road to Dignity for All: Ending Poverty, 
> Transforming 
> <http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5527SR_advance%20unedited_final.pdf>All 
> <http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5527SR_advance%20unedited_final.pdf>Lives 
> and Protecting the Planet 
> <http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5527SR_advance%20unedited_final.pdf>/" 
> . It is now open for responses 
> <http://ngosbeyond2014.org/articles/2014/12/6/call-for-civil-society-responses-to-the-un-secretary-general.html>. 
>
>
> /IT for Change submitted these comments 
> <http://www.itforchange.net/Response_to_the_synthesis_report_of_the_UN_Secretary-General_on_the_Post-2015_Development_Agenda#comments>/, 
> specifically on ICTs and data issues. Here, we highlight the need to 
> especially recognise ICTs as a general purpose technology which is 
> transforming our societies today and the need to ensure their 
> universal availability as well as an open and equitable technical 
> architecture of all ICTs, including the Internet. We also comment on 
> some of the initiatives proposed by the Secretary General on data for 
> sustainable development, and suggest some additional measures that 
> will turn the face of the digital revolution towards serving the 
> public good from the currently dominant trend of proprietisation of 
> public data resources and use of data for mass surveillance and social 
> control .
>
> In this context, please do read the very significant report of an SG's 
> advisory expert group on employing the data revolution for sustainable 
> development, "/A World that Counts: Mobilizing the Data Revolution for 
> Sustainable Development / 
> <http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf>" 
> .
>
> I consider this report to be of outstanding significance. First time a 
> global report deals with big data as a public resource, an issue 
> entirely missed in the IG related civil society discussions and 
> reports on data issues. All these discussions and reports have just 
> seen big data from a privacy angle. However, the role of data as a 
> resource, and its (mostly, mis-) appropriations as a private resource 
> while the basic nature of much of it could actually be determined as 
> 'public', is as important an issue. This report for the first time, at 
> least at this level, frames the issue of big data as a public 
> resource. It also calls for "building of a global consensus, 
> applicable principles and standards for data".
>

TO ADD

The above puts into focus how global IG discussions and formulations 
have mostly taken place from a civil and political rights  - also called 
negative rights - stand point, and not from the perspective of equally 
important economic, social and cultural rights. The reason for this is 
simple - almost all active global forums on IG are funded and supported 
by the North, and it is within this geopolitical constraints that IG 
discussions and norms development takes place. If there were a UN based 
space for these articulations, things would begun to take a different 
turn, more of an equity and social justice kind of considerations as 
well. But as we know, any progress on developing UN based venues for 
such normative activity are actively blocked, basically out of 
geopolitical and geoeconomic considerations. Why civil society joins in 
these blockades however is not clear.

So, to give a clear instance for better illustration, while the OECD's 
Internet related body ( CCICP ) discusses economics of private and big 
data, in an inter-governmental way, with consultations and inputs from 
other stakeholder, proposals for such discussions at the UN level in 
exactly the same format is described as an attempt to takeover the Internet.

Economics of big data is one of the biggest geo-economic issues of 
current times, as intellectual property was (and continues to be) of the 
last few decades. (Sadly, this issue  has not been understood in its 
importance by the developing countries.) The reason for keeping 
developing countries away from the processes of formulation of initial 
norms, principles and policies of this all important issue are obvious, 
as far as the interests of developed country governments go. But why 
civil society? That always remains the question.


parminder




> parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141210/30dfb3b2/attachment.htm>

From iza at anr.org  Wed Dec 10 12:02:27 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 02:02:27 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations
 update
In-Reply-To: <OF3857B192.DB11212A-ON85257DA8.00734FAB-85257DA9.005D0685@un.org>
References: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F36114ADB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>
 <24A0C875-5A52-460F-ADCA-0EDD47AEBD36@bluewin.ch> <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F361157EB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>
 <CALkm_1KbusiX5Bd9Z=qhR-JXXUCQ9RYrhC22G9Yf5fcQdpwmjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D3EA8F3-BA10-45AB-A1DC-2D9E2022CB73@bluewin.ch> <OF3857B192.DB11212A-ON85257DA8.00734FAB-85257DA9.005D0685@un.org>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhKQALTdZgZbAzhtcziPM_2r1LQg06hBttg2uu-qLSqAw@mail.gmail.com>

Some of you may already know but still want to share this here.

izumi


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vyacheslav Cherkasov <cherkasov at un.org>
Date: 2014-12-10 1:56 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations update
To: igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org, Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org


Dear All,
I would like to inform and share with you that the representatives of the
Member- States have concluded informal discussions of the draft UN
resolution  A/C.2/69/L.11 on Information and communications technologies
for development.

It was an extremely challenging discussion process with many formal and
informal consultations on ICT4D including a possible extension of the IGF
mandate.  The draft has more references on the significant role of IGF than
in the 2013 Resolution and acknowledges the importance of the IGF and its
mandate  as a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on various matters,
including public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
governance and its role in building partnerships among different
stakeholders, including through national and regional initiatives.

The Resolution welcomes the offer of Mexico to host the next meeting of the
IGF 2016, and recommends that the extension of the mandate of the IGF be
considered in the context of the overall review in 2015.

The resolution also recalls the GA resolution 68/302 on the “Modalities for
the overall review by the General Assembly of the implementation of the
outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society” and welcoming the
High Level Meeting of the UNGA in December 2015.

Please find below  the para 17 of the draft resolution relating the IGF
mandate for your info. Once the resolution is adopted, we will share it
with you. best, slava

17. Welcomes with appreciation the offer made by Mexico to host the next
meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in 2016, and recommends that the
extension of the mandate of the IGF be considered in the context of the
overall review in 2015 [adopted ad ref],

-------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141211/0635a4c0/attachment.htm>

From joao.caribe at me.com  Wed Dec 10 16:59:19 2014
From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:59:19 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Sign Plugin of BestBits
Message-ID: <A2D59BEB-70B8-4B5F-9EA5-A78C822F078D@me.com>

Dears from BestBits staff, which plugin or plugins you use to statement's endorsement ?


--
João Carlos R. Caribé
Consultor 
Skype joaocaribe
(021) 4042 7727 
(021) 9 8761 1967

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141210/4ac21e43/attachment.htm>

From joao.caribe at me.com  Wed Dec 10 19:15:58 2014
From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 22:15:58 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Reminder of NETmundial Initiative nomination
 deadline: 15 December
In-Reply-To: <1CFC0649-13A4-4C2D-9ACB-9E11186488D1@eff.org>
References: <1CFC0649-13A4-4C2D-9ACB-9E11186488D1@eff.org>
Message-ID: <1A99BA4D-7572-47DF-83D0-E86E149FF6E8@me.com>

I will!

Just waiting some endorsements I've requested. 

_
João Carlos Caribé
(021) 8761 1967
(021) 4042 7727
Skype joaocaribe
Enviado via iPad

> Em 08/12/2014, às 08:39, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> escreveu:
> 
> Currently few civil society representatives have nominated themselves to the Coordination Council of the NETmundial Initiative - in part this is due to dissatisfaction with the initiative, but even some of those who had previous expressed enthusiasm or interest have not nominated themselves.  In case this was an oversight, you have a few more days to do so.  Please use the nomination form here:
> 
> https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations
> 
> If you need any help or have any questions, let me know. Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141210/01811e53/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Dec 11 04:26:53 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:26:53 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations
 update
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKhKQALTdZgZbAzhtcziPM_2r1LQg06hBttg2uu-qLSqAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F36114ADB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> <24A0C875-5A52-460F-ADCA-0EDD47AEBD36@bluewin.ch> <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F361157EB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> <CALkm_1KbusiX5Bd9Z=qhR-JXXUCQ9RYrhC22G9Yf5fcQdpwmjg@mail.gmail.com> <4D3EA8F3-BA10-45AB-A1DC-2D9E2022CB73@bluewin.ch> <OF3857B192.DB11212A-ON85257DA8.00734FAB-85257DA9.005D0685@un.org> <CA+YNoKhKQALTdZgZbAzhtcziPM_2r1LQg06hBttg2uu-qLSqAw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A104AF71-30CA-417C-8A6B-DDF10D680C38@consensus.pro>

Thanks Izumi.

For those interested, the most recent easily accessible version is here: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.2/69/L.11 <http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.2/69/L.11>

> On 10 Dec 2014, at 18:02, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> 
> Some of you may already know but still want to share this here.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Vyacheslav Cherkasov <cherkasov at un.org <mailto:cherkasov at un.org>>
> Date: 2014-12-10 1:56 GMT+09:00
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations update
> To: igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org <mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org>, Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> I would like to inform and share with you that the representatives of the Member- States have concluded informal discussions of the draft UN resolution  A/C.2/69/L.11 on Information and communications technologies for development.
> 
> It was an extremely challenging discussion process with many formal and informal consultations on ICT4D including a possible extension of the IGF mandate.  The draft has more references on the significant role of IGF than in the 2013 Resolution and acknowledges the importance of the IGF and its mandate  as a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on various matters, including public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance and its role in building partnerships among different stakeholders, including through national and regional initiatives.
> 
> The Resolution welcomes the offer of Mexico to host the next meeting of the IGF 2016, and recommends that the extension of the mandate of the IGF be considered in the context of the overall review in 2015.
> 
> The resolution also recalls the GA resolution 68/302 on the “Modalities for the overall review by the General Assembly of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society” and welcoming the High Level Meeting of the UNGA in December 2015.
> 
> Please find below  the para 17 of the draft resolution relating the IGF mandate for your info. Once the resolution is adopted, we will share it with you. best, slava
> 
> 17. Welcomes with appreciation the offer made by Mexico to host the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in 2016, and recommends that the extension of the mandate of the IGF be considered in the context of the overall review in 2015 [adopted ad ref],
> 
> -------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141211/07077c70/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141211/07077c70/attachment.sig>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Dec 11 05:04:22 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:04:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations
 update
In-Reply-To: <A104AF71-30CA-417C-8A6B-DDF10D680C38@consensus.pro>
References: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F36114ADB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> <24A0C875-5A52-460F-ADCA-0EDD47AEBD36@bluewin.ch> <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F361157EB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> <CALkm_1KbusiX5Bd9Z=qhR-JXXUCQ9RYrhC22G9Yf5fcQdpwmjg@mail.gmail.com> <4D3EA8F3-BA10-45AB-A1DC-2D9E2022CB73@bluewin.ch> <OF3857B192.DB11212A-ON85257DA8.00734FAB-85257DA9.005D0685@un.org> <CA+YNoKhKQALTdZgZbAzhtcziPM_2r1LQg06hBttg2uu-qLSqAw@mail.gmail.com> <A104AF71-30CA-417C-8A6B-DDF10D680C38@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <334B55A1-AA82-4329-8DF5-DB60C4B94779@consensus.pro>

I should add, as a point of contrast: There will be a world summit on sustainable cities in 2013 (HABITAT III) - contrary to the dynamic that we see playing out in Internet policy, that conference will be very substantially multistakeholder; in fact, HABITAT II in 1996 was too (I was part of the preparatory process in depth and the conference itself). The 2nd committee resolution draft on HABITAT II can be found here <http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/581/67/PDF/N1458167.pdf?OpenElement>.

It is depressing to see that multi-stakeholder decision-making is much more advanced and accepted in many other areas of international policy than it is in relation to technology.

> On 11 Dec 2014, at 10:26, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Izumi.
> 
> For those interested, the most recent easily accessible version is here: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.2/69/L.11 <http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.2/69/L.11>
> 
>> On 10 Dec 2014, at 18:02, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org <mailto:iza at anr.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Some of you may already know but still want to share this here.
>> 
>> izumi
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Vyacheslav Cherkasov <cherkasov at un.org <mailto:cherkasov at un.org>>
>> Date: 2014-12-10 1:56 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations update
>> To: igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org <mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org>, Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> 
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> I would like to inform and share with you that the representatives of the Member- States have concluded informal discussions of the draft UN resolution  A/C.2/69/L.11 on Information and communications technologies for development.
>> 
>> It was an extremely challenging discussion process with many formal and informal consultations on ICT4D including a possible extension of the IGF mandate.  The draft has more references on the significant role of IGF than in the 2013 Resolution and acknowledges the importance of the IGF and its mandate  as a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on various matters, including public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance and its role in building partnerships among different stakeholders, including through national and regional initiatives.
>> 
>> The Resolution welcomes the offer of Mexico to host the next meeting of the IGF 2016, and recommends that the extension of the mandate of the IGF be considered in the context of the overall review in 2015.
>> 
>> The resolution also recalls the GA resolution 68/302 on the “Modalities for the overall review by the General Assembly of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society” and welcoming the High Level Meeting of the UNGA in December 2015.
>> 
>> Please find below  the para 17 of the draft resolution relating the IGF mandate for your info. Once the resolution is adopted, we will share it with you. best, slava
>> 
>> 17. Welcomes with appreciation the offer made by Mexico to host the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in 2016, and recommends that the extension of the mandate of the IGF be considered in the context of the overall review in 2015 [adopted ad ref],
>> 
>> -------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141211/b1af4b08/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141211/b1af4b08/attachment.sig>

From deborah at apc.org  Thu Dec 11 09:15:51 2014
From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:15:51 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations
 update
In-Reply-To: <A104AF71-30CA-417C-8A6B-DDF10D680C38@consensus.pro>
References: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F36114ADB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> <24A0C875-5A52-460F-ADCA-0EDD47AEBD36@bluewin.ch> <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F361157EB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> <CALkm_1KbusiX5Bd9Z=qhR-JXXUCQ9RYrhC22G9Yf5fcQdpwmjg@mail.gmail.com> <4D3EA8F3-BA10-45AB-A1DC-2D9E2022CB73@bluewin.ch> <OF3857B192.DB11212A-ON85257DA8.00734FAB-85257DA9.005D0685@un.org> <CA+YNoKhKQALTdZgZbAzhtcziPM_2r1LQg06hBttg2uu-qLSqAw@mail.gmail.com> <A104AF71-30CA-417C-8A6B-DDF10D680C38@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <5489A717.6080504@apc.org>


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

Thanks Izumi, Nick,

I think the more recent version is available here:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.2/69/L.67
 
It should be adopted at the committee level this afternoon (NY- time)

Best,
Deborah


On 12/11/14 4:26 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Thanks Izumi.
>
> For those interested, the most recent easily accessible version is
here: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.2/69/L.11
>
>> On 10 Dec 2014, at 18:02, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org
<mailto:iza at anr.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Some of you may already know but still want to share this here.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Vyacheslav Cherkasov <cherkasov at un.org <mailto:cherkasov at un.org>>
>> Date: 2014-12-10 1:56 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations update
>> To: igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org
<mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org>, Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>> I would like to inform and share with you that the representatives of
the Member- States have concluded informal discussions of the draft UN
resolution  A/C.2/69/L.11 on Information and communications technologies
for development.
>>
>> It was an extremely challenging discussion process with many formal
and informal consultations on ICT4D including a possible extension of
the IGF mandate.  The draft has more references on the significant role
of IGF than in the 2013 Resolution and acknowledges the importance of
the IGF and its mandate  as a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on
various matters, including public policy issues related to key elements
of Internet governance and its role in building partnerships among
different stakeholders, including through national and regional
initiatives.
>>
>> The Resolution welcomes the offer of Mexico to host the next meeting
of the IGF 2016, and recommends that the extension of the mandate of the
IGF be considered in the context of the overall review in 2015. 
>>
>> The resolution also recalls the GA resolution 68/302 on the
“Modalities for the overall review by the General Assembly of the
implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
Society” and welcoming the High Level Meeting of the UNGA in December 2015.
>>
>> Please find below  the para 17 of the draft resolution relating the
IGF mandate for your info. Once the resolution is adopted, we will share
it with you. best, slava
>>
>> 17. Welcomes with appreciation the offer made by Mexico to host the
next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in 2016, and recommends
that the extension of the mandate of the IGF be considered in the
context of the overall review in 2015 [adopted ad ref], 
>>
>> -------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUiacWAAoJEPeieloNaneNVzEQAJ541UQYiCtIknc4LV4xXU1B
U9gJScRA+nyFmeCfMi2TWIKiQccIwzkL1AMFMKUkmVYabRbH9vFXhLpgPv5FFu51
JTlC44cpyjDsC/Gjrd2BKsom/n4WmfpShPw9iLzhKW9ZDclxxYIRx0ckM/C2nZB8
/Mjh+iP04sx3YoNpKUN/qS91a7DXU7RsOCZzIz1NsYes39tyKsCBIvXZuCPhpDK/
WLfabAxq7KCFO0yUW3oHeNeuI9ClemRw+jIIrIvN6mx38k+CeNwnlW004X/aKwut
oQxS5CPwzFhpnc3kWyjMGeIrGsX8nm4mcZ8XXqs/cWEn37B5vEB1//RU5AF+RBFi
vmFvbUGZwulMkRj1vvYaPRozlkeboPEBFHISDD/AGedMDLgqW7Zeh31drNmYj3h2
qmjUgr4ssS5GCH9hmKylnmpLnZyoOXZQ1RLOv0EXiKOCAEvRZft3XCx2NhLueymr
hwbbqcJ7pqJnNghN3KxcSu4HGYRYQuSyPjFdE655VeNTnf4ugR4iD0XBStQ0pUMh
+LIRCl6hPmmaXl2GXP881Ni7I9gXzfeB6ndHnmwivcijvnkglw8KPGDZWgolnlwN
HUK58kXpOvZ9JX7DDsMEsRXypWV8Cj/VaktpBw9jv7E2kSOk9rK1vGJZIdtVgIhz
m3VUgDlSCyJlVc/FMSWu
=CXpN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141211/0149d368/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Dec 11 17:34:44 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:34:44 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] WP - How U.S. net neutrality could be an international
 human rights and trade fight
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcfwwaYqCDFqKAkV=T8zEm4HJEQfg3hTzjEvKn_8PtsEA@mail.gmail.com>

worth the reading for its international impacts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/12/10/how-net-neutrality-could-be-a-human-rights-issue/


-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141211/1b7e564a/attachment.htm>

From iza at anr.org  Thu Dec 11 17:47:44 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:47:44 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations
 update
In-Reply-To: <OF8945AD11.00A4B082-ON85257DAB.0076CD5C-85257DAB.0077E15C@un.org>
References: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F36114ADB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>
 <24A0C875-5A52-460F-ADCA-0EDD47AEBD36@bluewin.ch> <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F361157EB@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>
 <CALkm_1KbusiX5Bd9Z=qhR-JXXUCQ9RYrhC22G9Yf5fcQdpwmjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D3EA8F3-BA10-45AB-A1DC-2D9E2022CB73@bluewin.ch> <OF3857B192.DB11212A-ON85257DA8.00734FAB-85257DA9.005D0685@LocalDomain>
 <OF8945AD11.00A4B082-ON85257DAB.0076CD5C-85257DAB.0077E15C@un.org>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhBsj3d0qxXYYQLw6MAb=n2ZOe9h8NeAdELDcF5mq+jzA@mail.gmail.com>

So, this is final.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vyacheslav Cherkasov <cherkasov at un.org>
Date: 2014-12-12 6:49 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] GA 2nd Committee / ICT4D negotiations update
To: igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org
Cc: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org


Dear All,
Please be informed that the Second Committee has just adopted the draft
Resolution on A/C.2/69/L.67 on Information and communications technologies
for development. Please find below the adopted text of the para 17 related
to the mandate of the IGF. best, slava.

17. Welcomes with appreciation the offer made by Mexico to host the
meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in 2016, and recommends that the
extension of the mandate of the Forum be considered in the context of the
overall
review in 2015;

--------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141212/296c63c7/attachment.htm>

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Fri Dec 12 02:20:08 2014
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:20:08 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Ensuring utmost transparency - Free Software and Open
 Standards in the European Parliament
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A3AA25747@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Dear all,

I hope this analysis will be useful also in IG context.

Best regards.

//Erik


Web article: http://www.greens-efa.eu/free-software-and-open-standards-in-the-european-parliament-13245.html
Link to the study: http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Studies/Ensuring-Utmost-Transparency--Piana-Oberg-Korff.pdf

<http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Studies/Ensuring-Utmost-Transparency--Piana-Oberg-Korff.pdf>
Free Software and Open Standards in the European Parliament
Ensuring utmost transparency - Free Software and Open Standards under the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament

Do public bodies in Europe have an obligation to move from closed source and lock-in to vendor independence and free software? In general probably yes, but is it also true for the European Parliament? Definitely! This is the stark conclusion of the study "Ensuring utmost transparency - Free Software and Open Standards under the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament" by Carlo Piana and Ulf Öberg.

It is clear, the study says, that the Parliament has imposed upon itself a commitment to conduct its activities with the utmost transparency. This commitment follows from the legal standing of the Rules of Procedure, and, when analysed by Piana and Öberg, it turns out the European Parliament's standard of openness is higher than that of other EU institutions. This fact has consequences.

The study investigates in depth how the Parliament's own transparency obligations should inform its decisions, policies and procedures with regard to free software and open standards, for example:

- when Parliament implements communication infrastructure like email, the implementation should not impair standards-based access and should not restrict the use of mailing lists and encryption

- when Parliament opens procurement procedures it should promote free software and open standards through proportionate and calibrated specifications as new EU rules allow for the taking into account of environmental and social considerations and innovation in the awarding of public contracts

- when Parliament decides to make a given set of data or information available to the public, this must be done through non-discriminatory, transparent and up-to-date means of communication, and in open formats that support further analyses, uses and releases

- when Parliament adopts free software and open standards it should follow and exceed measurable benchmarks that other public bodies in the EU have already provided

- when Parliament can choose technologies that allow others to work with Parliament's own systems and data, such technologies should be privileged, even if they were to incur some extra costs

The authors conclude that "the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament should whenever possible make Free Software and Open Standards mandatory for all systems and data used for the work of Parliament. In our view, that is the most appropriate way for Parliament to meet its own standard of "utmost transparency"."

The study has been supervised by Professor Douwe Korff who says it "links this principle [of"utmost transparency"] with the technical standards and practical steps that can be taken to ensure its full implementation" and that "the authors have managed to draw on all these sources to indicate clearly what should be done in practical, technical terms by the officials managing the information and IT systems relating to the work of the European Parliament to truly and fully achieve the legal requirement of "utmost transparency". This report will become a major point of reference for the debates on those steps."
·         Download the study (first edition, PDF)<http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Studies/Ensuring-Utmost-Transparency--Piana-Oberg-Korff.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141212/06a6f15e/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Dec  1 04:54:38 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 10:54:38 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba>	<54762985.2010101@apc.org>	<053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca>

The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is that a 
book is static while the IG processes are in a complex, difficult 
dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph" of something which 
would be more or less regularly updated in a corresponding collaborative 
portal?

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>
>     I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
>     Internet Governance Handbook”.
>
>
> Sala: Let's do this!
>
>     This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present
>     their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what
>     the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters:
>
>     1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
>     2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
>     3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
>     infrastructure development etc.)
>     4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>
>     Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo,
>     APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author
>     would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen
>     pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free
>     to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever
>     position on one of the four main issues.
>
>     Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the
>     process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG
>     events ahead of us.
>
>     We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
>     official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions
>     etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book
>     would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish
>     this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen
>     by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would
>     strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder
>     mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process.
>
>     The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six
>     groups) would be the editor.
>
>     Any comment?
>
>     Wolfgang
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Dec 17 10:47:16 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:47:16 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>

press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed
today by other groups going deeper on the issues

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org>
Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net
neutrality, data privacy implicated
To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>



http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf



*For Immediate Release*:

*Contact*:

Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741, abradbery at citizen.org

Dec. 17, 2014



Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders at citizen.org



*Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations
Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections*

*U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door,
Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement *



WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and
public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact
proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are
being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade
advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.



The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce
and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which
is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade
Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure
conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with
the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to
trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact
next year.



“This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are
being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’
negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the
public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the
raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more
data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in
secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories
seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance
policies.”



Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to
its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be
concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international
rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door
process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating
rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion
is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but
excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”



With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S.
negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted
cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and
process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that
private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in
jurisdictions that ensure privacy.



Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial
and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when
sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for
affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for
improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other
countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become
binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.



For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for
net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo
<https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written by Professor
Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public
Citizen.



###



*Symone D. Sanders *

*Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch*

215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003

Office: 202.454.5108 | Cell: 402-671-8118

Email:  ssanders at citizen.org

Website: www.tradewatch.org

Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP



---

You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.

To unsubscribe click here:
http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to
leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org


-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/96d6a4a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Briefing on TISA E-Commerce Final.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 740999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/96d6a4a8/attachment.pdf>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Dec 17 11:06:20 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:06:20 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <104315F5-8E21-4899-B7A7-6EA08E9CCA67@consensus.pro>

Thanks, Carolina, but where is the leaked text itself?

On 17 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org>
> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net neutrality, data privacy implicated
> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
> 
>  
> 
> For Immediate Release:
> 
> Contact:
> 
> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741, abradbery at citizen.org  
> 
> Dec. 17, 2014
> 
>  
> Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders at citizen.org
>  
> 
> Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections
> 
> U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement
> 
>  
> 
> WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
> 
>  
> 
> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.
> 
>  
> 
> “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”
> 
>  
> 
> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”
> 
>  
> 
> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
> 
>  
> 
> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
> 
>  
> 
> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo co-written by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public Citizen.
>  
> ###
>  
> 
> Symone D. Sanders
> 
> Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
> 
> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
> 
> Office: 202.454.5108 | Cell: 402-671-8118
> 
> Email:  ssanders at citizen.org
> 
> Website: www.tradewatch.org
> 
> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
> 
>  
> 
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Carolina Rossini 
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
> 
> <Briefing on TISA E-Commerce Final.pdf>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/03340134/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/03340134/attachment.sig>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Dec 17 11:43:52 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:43:52 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <104315F5-8E21-4899-B7A7-6EA08E9CCA67@consensus.pro>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<104315F5-8E21-4899-B7A7-6EA08E9CCA67@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdgUYZwnQ2NknsomWPa8gVAuxgj=+b2boO+BSrRcytcGQ@mail.gmail.com>

coming later today it seems, but the language is mentioned in the briefing

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
wrote:
>
> Thanks, Carolina, but where is the leaked text itself?
>
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed
> today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org>
> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net
> neutrality, data privacy implicated
> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>
>
>
>
> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>
>
>
> *For Immediate Release*:
>
> *Contact*:
>
> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741, abradbery at citizen.org
>
> Dec. 17, 2014
>
>  Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders at citizen.org
>
>
>
> *Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations
> Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections*
>
> *U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door,
> Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement *
>
>
>
> WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and
> public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact
> proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are
> being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade
> advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
>
>
>
> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce
> and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA),
> which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade
> Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure
> conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with
> the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to
> trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact
> next year.
>
>
>
> “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are
> being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’
> negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the
> public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said
> Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the
> raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more
> data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in
> secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories
> seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance
> policies.”
>
>
>
> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to
> its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be
> concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international
> rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door
> process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating
> rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion
> is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but
> excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”
>
>
>
> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S.
> negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted
> cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and
> process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that
> private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in
> jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
>
>
>
> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial
> and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when
> sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for
> affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for
> improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other
> countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become
> binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
>
>
> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for
> net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo
> <https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written by Professor
> Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public
> Citizen.
>
> ###
>
>
>
> *Symone D. Sanders *
>
> *Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch*
>
> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
>
> Office: 202.454.5108 | Cell: 402-671-8118
>
> Email:  ssanders at citizen.org
>
> Website: www.tradewatch.org
>
> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>
>
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.
>
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to
> leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
>
>
> --
> --
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>  <Briefing on TISA E-Commerce Final.pdf>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/18d888ce/attachment.htm>

From maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org  Wed Dec 17 11:48:48 2014
From: maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org (=?UTF-8?B?TWFyeWFudCBGZXJuw6FuZGV6?=)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:48:48 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdgUYZwnQ2NknsomWPa8gVAuxgj=+b2boO+BSrRcytcGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>	<104315F5-8E21-4899-B7A7-6EA08E9CCA67@consensus.pro> <CAK-FJAdgUYZwnQ2NknsomWPa8gVAuxgj=+b2boO+BSrRcytcGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5491B3F0.8010000@edri.org>

The text was released by Associated Whistleblowing Press today:
https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html
See also https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/tisa.cleaned.pdf

Best,

Maryant

Le 17/12/2014 17:43, Carolina Rossini a écrit :
> coming later today it seems, but the language is mentioned in the briefing
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
> <nashton at consensus.pro <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks, Carolina, but where is the leaked text itself?
>
>     On 17 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Carolina Rossini
>     <carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>>     press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing
>>     distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>>
>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>     From: *Melinda St. Louis* <mstlouis at citizen.org
>>     <mailto:mstlouis at citizen.org>>
>>     Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
>>     Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak:
>>     net neutrality, data privacy implicated
>>     To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org
>>     <mailto:tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>>
>>
>>      
>>
>>     http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>>
>>      
>>
>>     _For Immediate Release_:
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     _Contact_:
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741 <tel:%28202%29%20588-7741>,
>>     abradbery at citizen.org <mailto:abradbery at citizen.org>
>>
>>     Dec. 17, 2014
>>
>>     	
>>      
>>     	
>>     Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108 <tel:%28202%29%20454-5108>,
>>     ssanders at citizen.org <mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
>>
>>      
>>
>>     *Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals
>>     Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy
>>     Protections*//
>>
>>     */U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in
>>     Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in
>>     Services Agreement /*
>>
>>      
>>
>>     WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality
>>     rages and public demands for better data privacy protections
>>     grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues
>>     related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door
>>     trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special
>>     access, said Public Citizen.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to
>>     e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed**Trade in Services
>>     Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a
>>     50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact
>>     would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their
>>     laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the
>>     provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country
>>     to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and
>>     implement the pact next year.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to
>>     trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door
>>     international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests
>>     have privileged access while the public and policy experts
>>     promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach,
>>     director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the
>>     raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands
>>     for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a
>>     pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent
>>     consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be
>>     setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet
>>     belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free
>>     Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are
>>     seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet
>>     functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not
>>     subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules
>>     internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic
>>     discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the
>>     domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise
>>     needed to make good policy.”
>>
>>      
>>
>>     With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that
>>     the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for
>>     unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on
>>     requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing
>>     governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive
>>     personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that
>>     ensure privacy.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical,
>>     financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not
>>     made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with
>>     no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S.
>>     organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies,
>>     which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the
>>     proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding
>>     on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its
>>     implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this
>>     memo <https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written
>>     by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law,
>>     and Kilic of Public Citizen.
>>      
>>     ###
>>
>>      
>>
>>     *Symone D. Sanders *
>>
>>     *Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch*
>>
>>     215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
>>
>>     Office: 202.454.5108 <tel:202.454.5108> | Cell: 402-671-8118
>>     <tel:402-671-8118>
>>
>>     Email:  ssanders at citizen.org <mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
>>
>>     Website: www.tradewatch.org <http://www.tradewatch.org/>
>>
>>     Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>>
>>      
>>
>>     ---
>>
>>     You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as:
>>     carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>.
>>
>>     To unsubscribe click here:
>>     http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
>>
>>     (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line
>>     is broken)
>>
>>     or send a blank email to
>>     leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
>>     <mailto:leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     -- 
>>     /Carolina Rossini /
>>     /Vice President, International Policy/
>>     *Public Knowledge*
>>     _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>>     + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>
>>     <Briefing on TISA E-Commerce
>>     Final.pdf>____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | 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

-- 
Maryant Fernández Pérez
Junior Advocacy Manager
European Digital Rights
Rue Belliard 20 
B- 1040 Brussels
http://edri.org

Tel: +32 2 274 25 70
PGP: D59A 1D3F 50CC 231B DCFE 3F2C 92FA 6F29 3D74 0B42

Donate to EDRi! https://edri.org/campaign/support-digital-rights-europe/

Subscribe to the EDRi-gram, our fortnightly roundup of digital rights
news! http://edri.org/newsletters/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/176a93c0/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Dec 17 11:53:44 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:53:44 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdgUYZwnQ2NknsomWPa8gVAuxgj=+b2boO+BSrRcytcGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com> <104315F5-8E21-4899-B7A7-6EA08E9CCA67@consensus.pro> <CAK-FJAdgUYZwnQ2NknsomWPa8gVAuxgj=+b2boO+BSrRcytcGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B62C505-C3E2-4E38-A80D-224CBBD8CCD0@consensus.pro>

 The text itself is here: https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/tisa.cleaned.pdf

I have a few thoughts on this - I regularly talk to the negotiators of TISA, as I have done for a few years now when it was just an idea in a few countries' negotiators minds.

With respect to the offer having no specific exception for data privacy: you should know that the parties have said that there will be a GATS-like exception for that horizontally, meaning, across the entire agreement. I am verifiably informed that this will not be sufficient for some of the negotiating parties - including major economies. In other words there is going to be more robust privacy protections in TISA than in previous trade agreements as I am reliably informed without it a deal that includes coverage for electronic trade will not gain agreement.

I am surprised and disappointed that the national security exception didn't get more attention. This is an extremely broad exception, and what you all probably don't know is that, like privacy, there will be a GATS-like national security exception across the entire agreement. That means that this exception is, quite literally, for the Internet and it is broader than GATS' exception as the legal analysis mentioned.

I can tell you that a number of parties to the TISA talks - of all sizes of economy - have said that the national security exception makes all the obligations on the Internet voluntary because it is so broad. This, it seems to me, is a terrible signal to send to the many countries engaging in crackdowns on the Internet. Some of the other parties to TISA are Turkey and Pakistan. Aside from anything else, these are not countries that have a good record about the open Internet. Some of the most significant censorship moves that Turkey has made in 2014 happened near the time when they received the offer from the US in TISA. Perhaps this is a coincidence, but I have to wonder. 

While I understand the concern that a number of you will have about the text, if you look at it through a human rights lens, ensuring the free flow of data is a very positive thing - and local hosting obligations are used right now by repressive governments to ensure that content is accessible to it for censorship purposes - and to spy more capably on their own people. As far as privacy goes, you have to ask yourself if you really want it to be easy for personal data to be held in any country. Most countries have a pretty poor record of protecting privacy. Wouldn't you want data to be held where it is most likely to be kept securely? Isn't ensuring that countries can compete to host data based upon robust privacy protections a desirable objective?

I know that there are strong views on trade agreements, but I have to tell you, as a front-row witness to the terrible climate on Internet policy in Geneva, trade is one of the few bright spots where there are countries insisting on strong privacy protections and I know the negotiators do feel the weight of history on them not to enable censorship or other such practices through their work. That's why I was so disappointed to see the US sending such a terrible signal to the world in proposing an extremely broad national security exception.

On 17 Dec 2014, at 17:43, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> coming later today it seems, but the language is mentioned in the briefing
> 
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> Thanks, Carolina, but where is the leaked text itself?
> 
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org>
>> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
>> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net neutrality, data privacy implicated
>> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> For Immediate Release:
>> 
>> Contact:
>> 
>> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741, abradbery at citizen.org  
>> 
>> Dec. 17, 2014
>> 
>>  
>> Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders at citizen.org
>>  
>> 
>> Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections
>> 
>> U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo co-written by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public Citizen.
>>  
>> ###
>>  
>> 
>> Symone D. Sanders
>> 
>> Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
>> 
>> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
>> 
>> Office: 202.454.5108 | Cell: 402-671-8118
>> 
>> Email:  ssanders at citizen.org
>> 
>> Website: www.tradewatch.org
>> 
>> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.
>> 
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
>> 
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>> 
>> or send a blank email to leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -- 
>> Carolina Rossini 
>> Vice President, International Policy
>> Public Knowledge
>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>> 
>> <Briefing on TISA E-Commerce Final.pdf>____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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 
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/c78f2180/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/c78f2180/attachment.sig>

From bkilic at citizen.org  Wed Dec 17 12:00:38 2014
From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:00:38 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB467E1@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>

Thank you Carol. Here is the link to the leaked text http://bit.ly/1qZZK4xan

If you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring. I have to say the provisions looks quite technical, drafted with complex trade jargon but they will have serious implications for internet governance policies not only in TISA countries but all around the world.

Both the TPP &TTIP also have e-commerce chapters, which we have not seen but we can assume that they are not much different from TISA.

I guess it is time for us to start the discussion on trade agreements and how they shape internet governance, before it is too late. We have been fighting really hard on IP because we learned from our experiences that closed-door international trade negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out emerged as a favorable venue for continuing global norm setting.

Now they are targeting internet governance!

Cheers,
Burcu


<http://t.co/U19XQawliA>
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:47 AM
To: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt; nncoalition at mailman.edri.org
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality

press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org<mailto:mstlouis at citizen.org>>
Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net neutrality, data privacy implicated
To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org<mailto:tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>>

http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf

For Immediate Release:

Contact:

Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741<tel:%28202%29%20588-7741>, abradbery at citizen.org<mailto:abradbery at citizen.org>

Dec. 17, 2014





Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108<tel:%28202%29%20454-5108>, ssanders at citizen.org<mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>


Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections
U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement

WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.

The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.

“This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”

Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”

With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.

Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.


For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo<https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public Citizen.



###

Symone D. Sanders
Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
Office: 202.454.5108<tel:202.454.5108> | Cell: 402-671-8118<tel:402-671-8118>
Email:  ssanders at citizen.org<mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
Website: www.tradewatch.org<http://www.tradewatch.org/>
Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP


---

You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>.

To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org<mailto:leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org>


--
--
Carolina Rossini
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/a16273be/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Dec 17 12:08:18 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:08:18 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB467E1@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com> <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB467E1@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>
Message-ID: <AFFD47E0-7E1A-434B-8BC5-15884869A4B1@consensus.pro>

FYI, I am reliably informed that the exact same, very broad national security exception in the leak today was presented in the TPP negotiations.

And yes, I think trade policy cannot be ignored when it comes to the Internet. There is a proposal for work on electronic commerce in the WTO that was just recently released that creates an opportunity to talk about the positive side of trade commitments.

I know many in civil society dislike trade agreements and to be honest there are things I dislike about them too - but there are some good aspects also. I did a post in CircleID not too long ago on exactly this; perhaps some of you may find it of interest:
Learning to Love the WTO: How Trade Policy Can Save Open Internet - and Bridge the Digital Divide

(Apologies for somewhat OTT headline)

On 17 Dec 2014, at 18:00, Burcu Kilic <bkilic at citizen.org> wrote:

> Thank you Carol. Here is the link to the leaked text http://bit.ly/1qZZK4xan
>  
> If you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring. I have to say the provisions looks quite technical, drafted with complex trade jargon but they will have serious implications for internet governance policies not only in TISA countries but all around the world.
>  
> Both the TPP &TTIP also have e-commerce chapters, which we have not seen but we can assume that they are not much different from TISA.
>  
> I guess it is time for us to start the discussion on trade agreements and how they shape internet governance, before it is too late. We have been fighting really hard on IP because we learned from our experiences that closed-door international trade negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out emerged as a favorable venue for continuing global norm setting.
>  
> Now they are targeting internet governance!
>  
> Cheers,
> Burcu
>  
>  
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:47 AM
> To: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt; nncoalition at mailman.edri.org
> Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
>  
> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>  
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org>
> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net neutrality, data privacy implicated
> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>
> 
>  
> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>  
> For Immediate Release:
> Contact:
> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741, abradbery at citizen.org
> Dec. 17, 2014
>  
> Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders at citizen.org
>  
> Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections
> 
> U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement
>  
> WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
>  
> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.
>  
> “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”
>  
> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”
>  
> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
>  
> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
>  
> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo co-written by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public Citizen.
>  
> ###
>  
> Symone D. Sanders
> Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
> Office: 202.454.5108 | Cell: 402-671-8118
> Email:  ssanders at citizen.org
> Website: www.tradewatch.org
> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>  
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
> 
> 
>  
> --
> -- 
> Carolina Rossini 
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/5f618554/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/5f618554/attachment.sig>

From bkilic at citizen.org  Wed Dec 17 12:39:20 2014
From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:39:20 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <5B62C505-C3E2-4E38-A80D-224CBBD8CCD0@consensus.pro>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <104315F5-8E21-4899-B7A7-6EA08E9CCA67@consensus.pro>
 <CAK-FJAdgUYZwnQ2NknsomWPa8gVAuxgj=+b2boO+BSrRcytcGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5B62C505-C3E2-4E38-A80D-224CBBD8CCD0@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB469F4@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>

Thank you Nick. I have to say that reliance on privacy exception specifically enumerated in the GATS XIV does not guarantee justification of the measure under that provision. In the light of recent decisions of the Appellate body, the GATS art XIV general exceptions turned out to be unpredictable by the necessity test and the chapeau. Even if there is a GATS-like exception in TISA, trade obligations could inhibit countries ability to protect privacy.

The national security exception is self-judging. It was used before by some WTO countries but interestingly the US has refused to submit to any dispute that has challenged those practices. There is no guidance on what it means or its limits as it has never been interpreted by the Appellate body.



From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:54 AM
To: Carolina Rossini
Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: Re: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality

 The text itself is here: https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/tisa.cleaned.pdf

I have a few thoughts on this - I regularly talk to the negotiators of TISA, as I have done for a few years now when it was just an idea in a few countries' negotiators minds.

With respect to the offer having no specific exception for data privacy: you should know that the parties have said that there will be a GATS-like exception for that horizontally, meaning, across the entire agreement. I am verifiably informed that this will not be sufficient for some of the negotiating parties - including major economies. In other words there is going to be more robust privacy protections in TISA than in previous trade agreements as I am reliably informed without it a deal that includes coverage for electronic trade will not gain agreement.

I am surprised and disappointed that the national security exception didn't get more attention. This is an extremely broad exception, and what you all probably don't know is that, like privacy, there will be a GATS-like national security exception across the entire agreement. That means that this exception is, quite literally, for the Internet and it is broader than GATS' exception as the legal analysis mentioned.

I can tell you that a number of parties to the TISA talks - of all sizes of economy - have said that the national security exception makes all the obligations on the Internet voluntary because it is so broad. This, it seems to me, is a terrible signal to send to the many countries engaging in crackdowns on the Internet. Some of the other parties to TISA are Turkey and Pakistan. Aside from anything else, these are not countries that have a good record about the open Internet. Some of the most significant censorship moves that Turkey has made in 2014 happened near the time when they received the offer from the US in TISA. Perhaps this is a coincidence, but I have to wonder.

While I understand the concern that a number of you will have about the text, if you look at it through a human rights lens, ensuring the free flow of data is a very positive thing - and local hosting obligations are used right now by repressive governments to ensure that content is accessible to it for censorship purposes - and to spy more capably on their own people. As far as privacy goes, you have to ask yourself if you really want it to be easy for personal data to be held in any country. Most countries have a pretty poor record of protecting privacy. Wouldn't you want data to be held where it is most likely to be kept securely? Isn't ensuring that countries can compete to host data based upon robust privacy protections a desirable objective?

I know that there are strong views on trade agreements, but I have to tell you, as a front-row witness to the terrible climate on Internet policy in Geneva, trade is one of the few bright spots where there are countries insisting on strong privacy protections and I know the negotiators do feel the weight of history on them not to enable censorship or other such practices through their work. That's why I was so disappointed to see the US sending such a terrible signal to the world in proposing an extremely broad national security exception.

On 17 Dec 2014, at 17:43, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>> wrote:


coming later today it seems, but the language is mentioned in the briefing

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro<mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>> wrote:
Thanks, Carolina, but where is the leaked text itself?
On 17 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>> wrote:

press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org<mailto:mstlouis at citizen.org>>
Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net neutrality, data privacy implicated
To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org<mailto:tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>>

http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf

For Immediate Release:

Contact:

Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741<tel:%28202%29%20588-7741>, abradbery at citizen.org<mailto:abradbery at citizen.org>

Dec. 17, 2014



Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108<tel:%28202%29%20454-5108>, ssanders at citizen.org<mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>


Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections
U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement

WASHINGTON, D.C. - While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.

The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.

"This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international 'trade' negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "Given the raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies."

Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, "The Internet belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy."

With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing governments' ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.

Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.

For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo<https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public Citizen.

###

Symone D. Sanders
Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
Office: 202.454.5108<tel:202.454.5108> | Cell: 402-671-8118<tel:402-671-8118>
Email:  ssanders at citizen.org<mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
Website: www.tradewatch.org<http://www.tradewatch.org/>
Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP


---

You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>.

To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org<mailto:leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org>


--
--
Carolina Rossini
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

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



--
--
Carolina Rossini
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/9705cd35/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Dec 17 13:27:55 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 19:27:55 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB469F4@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com> <104315F5-8E21-4899-B7A7-6EA08E9CCA67@consensus.pro> <CAK-FJAdgUYZwnQ2NknsomWPa8gVAuxgj=+b2boO+BSrRcytcGQ@mail.gmail.com> <5B62C505-C3E2-4E38-A80D-224CBBD8CCD0@consensus.pro> <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB469F4@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>
Message-ID: <B23AB895-F19F-40FB-B11F-772B7E3A6BD4@consensus.pro>

Dear Burcu,

Certainly the GATS exception for privacy has been criticised as allowing each country to do what it wishes with other nationals' data. There are TISA countries who are unable to take home that light of an obligation on privacy as it would conflict with much stronger provisions on privacy that they have in national law. I am told that this is a major issue in the talks now. In other words, more privacy-protecting formulations are being asserted, not the opposite. I am sure that perspective would welcome some civil society support for a more privacy-centric result; conversely, much of industry believes that each country should retain the freedom to decide for itself what level of protection is appropriate (in other words, a more GATS-like formulation is preferred by them).

On the national security exception: it has in the past been self judging in the WTO. However, GATS does provide for limitations on the scope of exceptions for this purpose as you know - the provision proposed by the US in TISA that the leak reveals is far broader - and it is specific to the Internet - where the broader agreement will contain a GATS-like (more limited) exception. 

The question here is not whether or not TISA (or any other trade agreement) will have a national security exception or not: they all do. The question is, will TISA have a special exception for the Internet, setting a precedent that effectively allows any country to say 'national security' and do whatever it likes vis a vis the Internet. I would strongly assert that this is a terrible precedent and that countries that assert this approach will open themselves to charges they are 'sanitising' Internet surveillance in trade policy. Whatever we may all think about trade deals, I would certainly suggest we should agree that this is a precedent that should not be set, especially by a major Western country that is meant to be an example of how to be an open, pluralistic society with support for human rights.

As to the appellate body, there is as yet no decision on how exactly TISA will fit into the WTO system, and it is far from clear that it will be subject to the dispute settlement system at all.

On 17 Dec 2014, at 18:39, Burcu Kilic <bkilic at citizen.org> wrote:

> Thank you Nick. I have to say that reliance on privacy exception specifically enumerated in the GATS XIV does not guarantee justification of the measure under that provision. In the light of recent decisions of the Appellate body, the GATS art XIV general exceptions turned out to be unpredictable by the necessity test and the chapeau. Even if there is a GATS-like exception in TISA, trade obligations could inhibit countries ability to protect privacy.
>  
> The national security exception is self-judging. It was used before by some WTO countries but interestingly the US has refused to submit to any dispute that has challenged those practices. There is no guidance on what it means or its limits as it has never been interpreted by the Appellate body.
>  
>  
>  
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:54 AM
> To: Carolina Rossini
> Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
>  
>  The text itself is here: https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/tisa.cleaned.pdf
> 
> I have a few thoughts on this - I regularly talk to the negotiators of TISA, as I have done for a few years now when it was just an idea in a few countries' negotiators minds.
>  
> With respect to the offer having no specific exception for data privacy: you should know that the parties have said that there will be a GATS-like exception for that horizontally, meaning, across the entire agreement. I am verifiably informed that this will not be sufficient for some of the negotiating parties - including major economies. In other words there is going to be more robust privacy protections in TISA than in previous trade agreements as I am reliably informed without it a deal that includes coverage for electronic trade will not gain agreement.
>  
> I am surprised and disappointed that the national security exception didn't get more attention. This is an extremely broad exception, and what you all probably don't know is that, like privacy, there will be a GATS-like national security exception across the entire agreement. That means that this exception is, quite literally, for the Internet and it is broader than GATS' exception as the legal analysis mentioned.
>  
> I can tell you that a number of parties to the TISA talks - of all sizes of economy - have said that the national security exception makes all the obligations on the Internet voluntary because it is so broad. This, it seems to me, is a terrible signal to send to the many countries engaging in crackdowns on the Internet. Some of the other parties to TISA are Turkey and Pakistan. Aside from anything else, these are not countries that have a good record about the open Internet. Some of the most significant censorship moves that Turkey has made in 2014 happened near the time when they received the offer from the US in TISA. Perhaps this is a coincidence, but I have to wonder. 
>  
> While I understand the concern that a number of you will have about the text, if you look at it through a human rights lens, ensuring the free flow of data is a very positive thing - and local hosting obligations are used right now by repressive governments to ensure that content is accessible to it for censorship purposes - and to spy more capably on their own people. As far as privacy goes, you have to ask yourself if you really want it to be easy for personal data to be held in any country. Most countries have a pretty poor record of protecting privacy. Wouldn't you want data to be held where it is most likely to be kept securely? Isn't ensuring that countries can compete to host data based upon robust privacy protections a desirable objective?
>  
> I know that there are strong views on trade agreements, but I have to tell you, as a front-row witness to the terrible climate on Internet policy in Geneva, trade is one of the few bright spots where there are countries insisting on strong privacy protections and I know the negotiators do feel the weight of history on them not to enable censorship or other such practices through their work. That's why I was so disappointed to see the US sending such a terrible signal to the world in proposing an extremely broad national security exception.
>  
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 17:43, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> coming later today it seems, but the language is mentioned in the briefing
>  
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> Thanks, Carolina, but where is the leaked text itself?
> 
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>  
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org>
> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net neutrality, data privacy implicated
> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>
> 
>  
> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>  
> For Immediate Release:
> Contact:
> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741, abradbery at citizen.org
> Dec. 17, 2014
>  
> Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders at citizen.org
>  
> Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections
> 
> U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement
>  
> WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
>  
> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.
>  
> “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”
>  
> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”
>  
> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
>  
> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
>  
> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo co-written by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public Citizen.
>  
> ###
>  
> Symone D. Sanders
> Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
> Office: 202.454.5108 | Cell: 402-671-8118
> Email:  ssanders at citizen.org
> Website: www.tradewatch.org
> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>  
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
> 
> 
>  
> --
> -- 
> Carolina Rossini 
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>  
> <Briefing on TISA E-Commerce Final.pdf>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/c2ed7535/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 666 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/c2ed7535/attachment.sig>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Dec 17 14:27:19 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:27:19 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <B23AB895-F19F-40FB-B11F-772B7E3A6BD4@consensus.pro>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com> <104315F5-8E21-4899-B7A7-6EA08E9CCA67@consensus.pro> <CAK-FJAdgUYZwnQ2NknsomWPa8gVAuxgj=+b2boO+BSrRcytcGQ@mail.gmail.com> <5B62C505-C3E2-4E38-A80D-224CBBD8CCD0@consensus.pro> <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB469F4@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com> <B23AB895-F19F-40FB-B11F-772B7E3A6BD4@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <D3FDE87B-7AEC-4274-8F98-1C053647087D@consensus.pro>

On reflection, I am being slightly unfair on the national security exception. The text we are seeing would apply to the whole agreement, so suggesting that this is just for the Internet isn't really true. That said, given that the context is a proposal that relates to all online commerce, it is quite broad, and that is a bad precedent - IMHO. It should be narrower.

On 17 Dec 2014, at 19:27, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> Dear Burcu,
> 
> Certainly the GATS exception for privacy has been criticised as allowing each country to do what it wishes with other nationals' data. There are TISA countries who are unable to take home that light of an obligation on privacy as it would conflict with much stronger provisions on privacy that they have in national law. I am told that this is a major issue in the talks now. In other words, more privacy-protecting formulations are being asserted, not the opposite. I am sure that perspective would welcome some civil society support for a more privacy-centric result; conversely, much of industry believes that each country should retain the freedom to decide for itself what level of protection is appropriate (in other words, a more GATS-like formulation is preferred by them).
> 
> On the national security exception: it has in the past been self judging in the WTO. However, GATS does provide for limitations on the scope of exceptions for this purpose as you know - the provision proposed by the US in TISA that the leak reveals is far broader - and it is specific to the Internet - where the broader agreement will contain a GATS-like (more limited) exception. 
> 
> The question here is not whether or not TISA (or any other trade agreement) will have a national security exception or not: they all do. The question is, will TISA have a special exception for the Internet, setting a precedent that effectively allows any country to say 'national security' and do whatever it likes vis a vis the Internet. I would strongly assert that this is a terrible precedent and that countries that assert this approach will open themselves to charges they are 'sanitising' Internet surveillance in trade policy. Whatever we may all think about trade deals, I would certainly suggest we should agree that this is a precedent that should not be set, especially by a major Western country that is meant to be an example of how to be an open, pluralistic society with support for human rights.
> 
> As to the appellate body, there is as yet no decision on how exactly TISA will fit into the WTO system, and it is far from clear that it will be subject to the dispute settlement system at all.
> 
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 18:39, Burcu Kilic <bkilic at citizen.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you Nick. I have to say that reliance on privacy exception specifically enumerated in the GATS XIV does not guarantee justification of the measure under that provision. In the light of recent decisions of the Appellate body, the GATS art XIV general exceptions turned out to be unpredictable by the necessity test and the chapeau. Even if there is a GATS-like exception in TISA, trade obligations could inhibit countries ability to protect privacy.
>>  
>> The national security exception is self-judging. It was used before by some WTO countries but interestingly the US has refused to submit to any dispute that has challenged those practices. There is no guidance on what it means or its limits as it has never been interpreted by the Appellate body.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:54 AM
>> To: Carolina Rossini
>> Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
>>  
>>  The text itself is here: https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/tisa.cleaned.pdf
>> 
>> I have a few thoughts on this - I regularly talk to the negotiators of TISA, as I have done for a few years now when it was just an idea in a few countries' negotiators minds.
>>  
>> With respect to the offer having no specific exception for data privacy: you should know that the parties have said that there will be a GATS-like exception for that horizontally, meaning, across the entire agreement. I am verifiably informed that this will not be sufficient for some of the negotiating parties - including major economies. In other words there is going to be more robust privacy protections in TISA than in previous trade agreements as I am reliably informed without it a deal that includes coverage for electronic trade will not gain agreement.
>>  
>> I am surprised and disappointed that the national security exception didn't get more attention. This is an extremely broad exception, and what you all probably don't know is that, like privacy, there will be a GATS-like national security exception across the entire agreement. That means that this exception is, quite literally, for the Internet and it is broader than GATS' exception as the legal analysis mentioned.
>>  
>> I can tell you that a number of parties to the TISA talks - of all sizes of economy - have said that the national security exception makes all the obligations on the Internet voluntary because it is so broad. This, it seems to me, is a terrible signal to send to the many countries engaging in crackdowns on the Internet. Some of the other parties to TISA are Turkey and Pakistan. Aside from anything else, these are not countries that have a good record about the open Internet. Some of the most significant censorship moves that Turkey has made in 2014 happened near the time when they received the offer from the US in TISA. Perhaps this is a coincidence, but I have to wonder. 
>>  
>> While I understand the concern that a number of you will have about the text, if you look at it through a human rights lens, ensuring the free flow of data is a very positive thing - and local hosting obligations are used right now by repressive governments to ensure that content is accessible to it for censorship purposes - and to spy more capably on their own people. As far as privacy goes, you have to ask yourself if you really want it to be easy for personal data to be held in any country. Most countries have a pretty poor record of protecting privacy. Wouldn't you want data to be held where it is most likely to be kept securely? Isn't ensuring that countries can compete to host data based upon robust privacy protections a desirable objective?
>>  
>> I know that there are strong views on trade agreements, but I have to tell you, as a front-row witness to the terrible climate on Internet policy in Geneva, trade is one of the few bright spots where there are countries insisting on strong privacy protections and I know the negotiators do feel the weight of history on them not to enable censorship or other such practices through their work. That's why I was so disappointed to see the US sending such a terrible signal to the world in proposing an extremely broad national security exception.
>>  
>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 17:43, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> coming later today it seems, but the language is mentioned in the briefing
>>  
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> Thanks, Carolina, but where is the leaked text itself?
>> 
>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  
>> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>>  
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org>
>> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
>> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net neutrality, data privacy implicated
>> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>
>> 
>>  
>> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>>  
>> For Immediate Release:
>> Contact:
>> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741, abradbery at citizen.org
>> Dec. 17, 2014
>>  
>> Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders at citizen.org
>>  
>> Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections
>> 
>> U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement
>>  
>> WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
>>  
>> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.
>>  
>> “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”
>>  
>> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”
>>  
>> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
>>  
>> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
>>  
>> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo co-written by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public Citizen.
>>  
>> ###
>>  
>> Symone D. Sanders
>> Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
>> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
>> Office: 202.454.5108 | Cell: 402-671-8118
>> Email:  ssanders at citizen.org
>> Website: www.tradewatch.org
>> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>>  
>> ---
>> 
>> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.
>> 
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
>> 
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>> 
>> or send a blank email to leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> --
>> -- 
>> Carolina Rossini 
>> Vice President, International Policy
>> Public Knowledge
>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>  
>> <Briefing on TISA E-Commerce Final.pdf>____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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 
>> Vice President, International Policy
>> Public Knowledge
>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/249e7994/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/249e7994/attachment.sig>

From avri at acm.org  Mon Dec  1 05:41:03 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:41:03 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba>	<54762985.2010101@apc.org>	<053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com> <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org>

Hi,

Might be one of those things that is more suited to a wiki or some other
online work that can be updated as necessary.

And if one does create one of those with the proper format, it can be
gathered into an ebook  or an printed object whenever wanted. 

I like the idea of a an online development that combines new writings
with existing writings that is under constant update, and would be
willing to contribute to that sort of ongoing dynamic effort if we aable
to get one organized.

avri
On 01-Dec-14 10:54, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is that
> a book is static while the IG processes are in a complex, difficult
> dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph" of something
> which would be more or less regularly updated in a corresponding
> collaborative portal?
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>
>>
>>     I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
>>     Internet Governance Handbook”.
>>
>>
>> Sala: Let's do this!
>>
>>     This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present
>>     their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what
>>     the positions are. The book could be structured into four main
>> chapters:
>>
>>     1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
>>     2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
>>     3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
>>     infrastructure development etc.)
>>     4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>>
>>     Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo,
>>     APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author
>>     would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen
>>     pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free
>>     to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever
>>     position on one of the four main issues.
>>
>>     Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the
>>     process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG
>>     events ahead of us.
>>
>>     We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
>>     official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions
>>     etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book
>>     would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish
>>     this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen
>>     by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would
>>     strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder
>>     mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process.
>>
>>     The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six
>>     groups) would be the editor.
>>
>>     Any comment?
>>
>>     Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141201/eb951f0b/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Dec 17 14:52:55 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:52:55 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <B23AB895-F19F-40FB-B11F-772B7E3A6BD4@consensus.pro>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<104315F5-8E21-4899-B7A7-6EA08E9CCA67@consensus.pro>
	<CAK-FJAdgUYZwnQ2NknsomWPa8gVAuxgj=+b2boO+BSrRcytcGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B62C505-C3E2-4E38-A80D-224CBBD8CCD0@consensus.pro>
	<3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB469F4@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>
	<B23AB895-F19F-40FB-B11F-772B7E3A6BD4@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAev7pbmDiaa-TTq4TFU7E4M=15SGSa6=d__H48jDKEqvQ@mail.gmail.com>

a little paper i co-authored with Alberto last year on this issue
http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/tpp_and_free_flow.pdf

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
wrote:
>
> Dear Burcu,
>
> Certainly the GATS exception for privacy has been criticised as allowing
> each country to do what it wishes with other nationals' data. There are
> TISA countries who are unable to take home that light of an obligation on
> privacy as it would conflict with much stronger provisions on privacy that
> they have in national law. I am told that this is a major issue in the
> talks now. In other words, more privacy-protecting formulations are being
> asserted, not the opposite. I am sure that perspective would welcome some
> civil society support for a more privacy-centric result; conversely, much
> of industry believes that each country should retain the freedom to decide
> for itself what level of protection is appropriate (in other words, a more
> GATS-like formulation is preferred by them).
>
> On the national security exception: it has in the past been self judging
> in the WTO. However, GATS does provide for limitations on the scope of
> exceptions for this purpose as you know - the provision proposed by the US
> in TISA that the leak reveals is far broader - and it is specific to the
> Internet - where the broader agreement will contain a GATS-like (more
> limited) exception.
>
> The question here is not whether or not TISA (or any other trade
> agreement) will have a national security exception or not: they all do. The
> question is, will TISA have a special exception for the Internet, setting a
> precedent that effectively allows any country to say 'national security'
> and do whatever it likes vis a vis the Internet. I would strongly assert
> that this is a terrible precedent and that countries that assert this
> approach will open themselves to charges they are 'sanitising' Internet
> surveillance in trade policy. Whatever we may all think about trade deals,
> I would certainly suggest we should agree that this is a precedent that
> should not be set, especially by a major Western country that is meant to
> be an example of how to be an open, pluralistic society with support for
> human rights.
>
> As to the appellate body, there is as yet no decision on how exactly TISA
> will fit into the WTO system, and it is far from clear that it will be
> subject to the dispute settlement system at all.
>
>
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 18:39, Burcu Kilic <bkilic at citizen.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you Nick. I have to say that reliance on privacy exception
> specifically enumerated in the GATS XIV does not guarantee justification of
> the measure under that provision. In the light of recent decisions of the
> Appellate body, the GATS art XIV general exceptions turned out to be
> unpredictable by the necessity test and the chapeau. Even if there is a
> GATS-like exception in TISA, trade obligations could inhibit countries
> ability to protect privacy.
>
> The national security exception is self-judging. It was used before by
> some WTO countries but interestingly the US has refused to submit to any
> dispute that has challenged those practices. There is no guidance on what
> it means or its limits as it has never been interpreted by the Appellate
> body.
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [
> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] *On Behalf Of *Nick Ashton-Hart
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:54 AM
> *To:* Carolina Rossini
> *Cc:* <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
>
>  The text itself is here:
> https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/tisa.cleaned.pdf
>
> I have a few thoughts on this - I regularly talk to the negotiators of
> TISA, as I have done for a few years now when it was just an idea in a few
> countries' negotiators minds.
>
> With respect to the offer having no specific exception for data privacy:
> you should know that the parties have said that there will be a GATS-like
> exception for that horizontally, meaning, across the entire agreement. I am
> verifiably informed that this will not be sufficient for some of the
> negotiating parties - including major economies. In other words there is
> going to be more robust privacy protections in TISA than in previous trade
> agreements as I am reliably informed without it a deal that includes
> coverage for electronic trade will not gain agreement.
>
> I am surprised and disappointed that the national security exception
> didn't get more attention. This is an extremely broad exception, and what
> you all probably don't know is that, like privacy, there will be a
> GATS-like national security exception across the entire agreement. That
> means that this exception is, quite literally, for the Internet and it is
> broader than GATS' exception as the legal analysis mentioned.
>
> I can tell you that a number of parties to the TISA talks - of all sizes
> of economy - have said that the national security exception makes all the
> obligations on the Internet voluntary because it is so broad. This, it
> seems to me, is a terrible signal to send to the many countries engaging in
> crackdowns on the Internet. Some of the other parties to TISA are Turkey
> and Pakistan. Aside from anything else, these are not countries that have a
> good record about the open Internet. Some of the most significant
> censorship moves that Turkey has made in 2014 happened near the time when
> they received the offer from the US in TISA. Perhaps this is a coincidence,
> but I have to wonder.
>
> While I understand the concern that a number of you will have about the
> text, if you look at it through a human rights lens, ensuring the free flow
> of data is a very positive thing - and local hosting obligations are used
> right now by repressive governments to ensure that content is accessible to
> it for censorship purposes - and to spy more capably on their own people.
> As far as privacy goes, you have to ask yourself if you really want it to
> be easy for personal data to be held in any country. Most countries have a
> pretty poor record of protecting privacy. Wouldn't you want data to be held
> where it is most likely to be kept securely? Isn't ensuring that countries
> can compete to host data based upon robust privacy protections a desirable
> objective?
>
> I know that there are strong views on trade agreements, but I have to tell
> you, as a front-row witness to the terrible climate on Internet policy in
> Geneva, trade is one of the few bright spots where there are countries
> insisting on strong privacy protections and I know the negotiators do feel
> the weight of history on them not to enable censorship or other such
> practices through their work. That's why I was so disappointed to see the
> US sending such a terrible signal to the world in proposing an extremely
> broad national security exception.
>
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 17:43, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> coming later today it seems, but the language is mentioned in the briefing
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Carolina, but where is the leaked text itself?
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed
> today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Melinda St. Louis* <mstlouis at citizen.org>
> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net
> neutrality, data privacy implicated
> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>
>
> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>
> *For Immediate Release*:
> *Contact*:
> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741, abradbery at citizen.org
> Dec. 17, 2014
>
> Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders at citizen.org
>
>
> *Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations
> Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections*
> *U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door,
> Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement*
>
> WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and
> public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact
> proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are
> being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade
> advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
>
> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce
> and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA),
> which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade
> Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure
> conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with
> the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to
> trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact
> next year.
>
> “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are
> being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’
> negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the
> public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said
> Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the
> raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more
> data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in
> secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories
> seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance
> policies.”
>
> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to
> its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be
> concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international
> rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door
> process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating
> rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion
> is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but
> excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”
>
> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S.
> negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted
> cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and
> process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that
> private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in
> jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
>
> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial
> and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when
> sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for
> affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for
> improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other
> countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become
> binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
>
> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for
> net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo
> <https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written by Professor
> Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public
> Citizen.
>
> ###
>
> *Symone D. Sanders*
> *Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch*
> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
> Office: 202.454.5108 | Cell: 402-671-8118
> Email:  ssanders at citizen.org
> Website: www.tradewatch.org
> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.
>
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to
> leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
>
>
> --
> --
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
> <Briefing on TISA E-Commerce
> Final.pdf>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141217/42c25fe2/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Dec 18 02:21:12 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:51:12 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54928068.2090108@itforchange.net>


This below is a very important development, and the analysis 
<https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/analisis.cleaned.pdf> by Prof 
Kelsey and Dr Kilic is really really good.

The upshot in my view is; the global Internet would finally be governed, 
has to be governed, like any other important social system. The real 
question that we face, especially in the context of these new 
revelations, is; whether

(1) the Internet should be governed as a 'trade system', and among a few 
willing countries, which represent the most powerful countries plus 
those who are willing to partake of the fruits of cooptation, or


(2)  it should be governed as a/unique new global infrastructure of 
communication, information, and social organizing/ (and thus of many a 
social system, including trade) in venues that are open to all countries 
of the world, more powerful or less, big or small.

(Included in the above is the question whether the key value flow on the 
Internet, data, is to be considered in a framework of its multiferous 
enmeshment with many sectors of our society, or just as a commodity for 
trade, with some minor 'exceptions' admitted here and there.)

One would think that for a civil society group the above is a simple 
choice to make. But unfortunately, most civil society actors in the IG 
space have focussed on narrow specific issues missing this larger 
framework, and thus missing the wood for the tree. Willy nilly, in my 
view, it amounts to complicity with option 1 above .

Kelsey and Kilc's analysis begins with a very pertinent listing of US' 
objectives. While all three listed objectives are instructive, I 
especially quote no 3

"prevent or restrict government regulation that impedes the activities 
and profits of the major global services industries, and guarantees 
unrestricted cross-border data flows, which impacts on consumer 
protections, privacy laws, regulatory constraints and competition policy."

How effective the US strategy has been on this count is obvious... It 
has kept the IG world embroiled in the multistakehoder versus 
multilateral debate as it goes ahead building the global architecture of 
IG and of the Internet through its secret agreements like the TISA. When 
the pressure becomes too much, like post Snowden, it throws a NTIA 
transition ball for kids to play with, which is both the not most 
important global IG issues, and even in its best possible outcome does 
not really change much. But quite good to divert people' thinking and 
energy for a year or two. And if one asks, but what about non-tech 
issues, it comes up with the WEF based NetMundial Initiative, and gets 
enthusiastic civil society backers - though anyone will ask the 
question, how the US push to prevent public interest governance of the 
Internet for the sake of protecting its big business interests (see the 
quote above) is addressed by new forums where those very big business 
interests will now direct participate in public policy development. But 
then...

parminder



On Wednesday 17 December 2014 09:17 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed 
> today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Melinda St. Louis* <mstlouis at citizen.org 
> <mailto:mstlouis at citizen.org>>
> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net 
> neutrality, data privacy implicated
> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org 
> <mailto:tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>>
>
> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>
> _For Immediate Release_:
>
> 	
>
> _Contact_:
>
> 	
>
> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741 <tel:%28202%29%20588-7741>, 
> abradbery at citizen.org <mailto:abradbery at citizen.org>
>
> Dec. 17, 2014
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108 <tel:%28202%29%20454-5108>, 
> ssanders at citizen.org <mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
>
> *Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations 
> Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections*//
>
> */U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in 
> Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in 
> Services Agreement /*
>
> WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages 
> and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. 
> trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both 
> policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which 
> corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
>
> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to 
> e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed**Trade in Services 
> Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country 
> subset of World Trade Organization members. The pact would require 
> signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations 
> and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure 
> to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are 
> pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.
>
> “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade 
> are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international 
> ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests have privileged 
> access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer 
> interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public 
> Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging domestic debate over 
> net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the 
> constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is 
> not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like 
> a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”
>
> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs 
> to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should 
> be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in 
> international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so 
> in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet 
> users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while 
> the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around 
> the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise 
> needed to make good policy.”
>
> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the 
> U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted 
> cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and 
> process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure 
> that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only 
> in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
>
> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, 
> financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made 
> public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal 
> recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are 
> pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably 
> stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data 
> movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed 
> progress would be foreclosed.
>
> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications 
> for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo 
> <https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written by 
> Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic 
> of Public Citizen.
>
> ###
>
> *Symone D. Sanders *
>
> *Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch*
>
> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
>
> Office: 202.454.5108 <tel:202.454.5108> | Cell: 402-671-8118 
> <tel:402-671-8118>
>
> Email: ssanders at citizen.org <mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
>
> Website: www.tradewatch.org <http://www.tradewatch.org/>
>
> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: 
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>.
>
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org 
> <mailto:leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141218/cfe4f8a2/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Dec 18 03:07:44 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:37:44 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Results Available for 17 December
 2014 New gTLD Program Auction
In-Reply-To: <549287D2.9040909@itforchange.net>
References: <549287D2.9040909@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54928B50.5050008@itforchange.net>


.baby is auctioned off to Johnson and Johnson, I understand, for private 
use - meaning it wont be available to anyone other than J&J. It went for 
$3,088,888 . See https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-12-17-en

   It is a clear loot - cultural and financial... But the civil society 
associated with the IG scene is too well 'engaged' and pampered by the 
status-quo-ists for them to ask the needed questions... I wrote the 
below email to a civil society group that is directly associated with 
ICANN...

In fact,  when discussions on 'closed generics'* was underway in ICANN, 
some prominent members of civil society here wrote a paper approving 
this practice in the name of 'innovative business models'...

(* closed generic are those top level domain names like .baby and .book, 
that are allocated for private use, whereby no one else will be able to 
use them. They get used to indicate services, products or activities 
exclusively of just that one company. )

parminder


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [At-Large] Results Available for 17 December 2014 New gTLD 
Program Auction
Date: 	Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:22:50 +0530
From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: 	at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org




It really hurts deeply to my public and political convictions when a 
generic term of language like 'baby' is auctioned off to the highest 
bidder for a certain, extremely important, exclusive use. What public 
interest has been served here? Is there anyone to ask this question? And 
I direct this question specifically to that part of the civil society 
which the rest of the world would trust should be asking the questions 
in the ICANN's context.

Any trademark authority would have rejected out of hand if Johnson and 
Johnson had sought 'baby' as a trademark for itself. The reasons are 
obvious. But those reasons do not mean anything to ICANN, and perhaps 
neither to civil society groups associated with ICANN.

But the trademark authorities are expressly public interest bodies, 
under public authorities, which are in turn subject to institutionalised 
public oversight and accountability.

ICANN on the other hand is a system captured by a group of people, who 
have developed the perfect means and system to keep all those close by 
and powerful happy in different ways - it uses the euphemism 
'stakeholders' for them.

Most of all, it keeps the big daddy, the US, happy, by employing various 
means to support its  reign over theglobalInternet - it keeps a 
boisterous IG circuit in play that supports the status quo, and drowns 
out every other voice. This has been done very effectively till now. 
Btw, which technical governance mandate ICANN was pursuing to propose 
and set up the World Economic Forum based new Net Mundial Initiative, 
which is simply a way to divert global demands for addressing pressing 
Internet related public policy issues. This is done directly to appease 
US government's political interest, which ICANN has no business to be 
doing.. And then it keep the domain name industry happy and prospering, 
and also other major industries.... This group of people, which goes in 
the name of ICANN, does all this using the enormous funds that it 
illegally collects as a tax from global public using the Internet. This 
is where the money goes, and it produces conditions for further extraction.

It is a sorry state.

parminder


On Thursday 18 December 2014 11:18 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> How long that will continue/last will be a question to answer in near
> future.
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 18 Dec 2014 02:02, "Carlton Samuels"<carlton.samuels at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> The money pile grows...
>>
>> -Carlton
>>
>> ==============================
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> =============================
>>
>>
>>    [image: ICANN]<http://www.icann.org/>  News Alert
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-12-17-en
>> ------------------------------
>> Results Available for 17 December 2014 New gTLD Program Auction
>>
>> 17 December 2014
>>
>> On 17 December 2014, Power Auctions LLC<http://www.powerauctions.com/>,
>> ICANN's authorized auction service provider, conducted a New gTLD Program
>> Auction to resolve string contention for two new generic top-level domain
>> (gTLD) strings: .BABY and .MLS. Applicants for these strings were unable to
>> resolve contention among themselves; thus their contention sets proceeded
>> to auction, which is the method of last resort to resolve string contention
>> as prescribed in Module 4 of the New gTLD Program Applicant Guidebook
>> <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb>. Subject to payment of the
>> winning price and meeting all other criteria for eligibility, the winner
>> will enter ICANN's contracting process to sign a Registry Agreement to
>> operate the respective gTLD.
>>
>> Six applicants participated in the auction for .BABY. Johnson & Johnson
>> Services Inc. prevailed with a winning price of $3,088,888.
>>
>> Two applicants participated in the auction for MLS. The Canadian Real
>> Estate Association prevailed with a winning price of $3,359,000.
>>
>> All proceeds from the Auction are being segregated and withheld from use
>> until ICANN's Board of Directors define a plan for an appropriate use of
>> the funds through consultation with the community.
>> More Information
>>
>>     - Auction Results webpage
>>     <
>> https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults
>>> :
>>     Auction reports on this page on the New gTLD Microsite provide
>> additional
>>     information on bidding.
>>     - Auction proceeds and costs
>>     <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds>: A detailed
>>     summary of the proceeds and costs of all auctions conducted through
>>     November 2014. This information is updated at the end of each month.
>>     - Auctions schedule
>>     <
>> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/schedule-12dec14-en.pdf>
>>     [PDF, 253 KB]: Subsequent auctions are scheduled to occur on a monthly
>>     basis throughout 2014 and into early 2015. Auction events are intended
>> to
>>     resolve multiple contention sets simultaneously.
>>     - General New gTLD Program Auctions
>>     <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions>  information.
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>
>> At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org
>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141218/3292492b/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Dec 18 07:16:36 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:16:36 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: The Busan Consensus: A Turning Point?
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0W-LB_b9KE2tHpv_YKMWgW7m_MGOsfyGyOuVUuBW1CLw@mail.gmail.com>

We already heard Sally, Leslie, and Andrea's reflections on the Plenipot at
the ISOC-DC debrief <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7227> a month back. Now, Danny
Sepulveda is defining it as win for those who were concerned about ITU
mission creep in what he terms
<https://openinternet.state.gov/message-ambassador-sepulveda/>  "the Busan
Consensus" -   *"In Busan, we established a basis and process that enables
the ITU to work within its mandate to promote global connectivity while
leaving decisions about how people use that connectivity to more
appropriate institutions and deliberations."   *This will be the focus of
today's discussion.

For a wider overview of what went down in Busan read this report
<https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/12/10/itu-plenipotentiary-2014-impressions-and-analysis-of-outcomes>
from
ISOC-NY's own Avri Doria.


[image: ei_plenipot14]
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/EI-PP-14/>Today, *Thursday
December 18 2014* at *9am EST*, the *European Institute* will host *"The
Busan Consensus: A Turning Point
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/EI-PP-14/>"* in Washington DC.
A panel will consider the outcomes of the recent *ITU Plenipotentiary
Conference <http://www.itu.int/en/plenipotentiary/2014/Pages/default.aspx>*.
Speakers: *Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda*, Deputy Assistant Secretary and
U.S. Coordinator for International Communication and Information Policy,
U.S. Department of State; *Sally Shipman Wentworth*, Vice President of
Global Policy Development, Internet Society; *Marie Royce*, Senior Director
International Affairs, Alcatel-Lucent; *Leslie Martinkovics*, Director of
International Public Policy & Regulatory Affairs, Verizon; *Andrea Glorioso*,
Counselor, Digital Agenda & ICT, Delegation of the European Union;
Moderator: *Dr. Michael Nelson*, Adjunct Professor, Internet
Studies,Communication, Culture, & Technology Program, Georgetown
University. The event will be webcast live via the* Internet Society
Livestream Channel <https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/EI-PP-14/>*.





*What: The Busan Consensus: A Turning Point
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/EI-PP-14/>Where: Cosmos Club,
Washington DCWhen: Thursday December 18 2014 at 9:00-10:30am EST |
14:00-16:30
UTCWebcast: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/EI-PP-14/
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/EI-PP-14/>Twitter: #plenipot14
+ @EuroInstituteDC
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23plenipot14%20%40EuroInstituteDC&src=typd>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7329#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7329#comments>


*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7329



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141218/e32c3e2d/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Dec 18 21:59:56 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:29:56 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Results Available for 17 December
 2014 New gTLD Program Auction
In-Reply-To: <5492F801.3090200@itforchange.net>
References: <5492F801.3090200@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <549394AC.1030309@itforchange.net>

Forwarding an email exchange from another elist, highlighting some facts 
about a serious violation of public interest by ICANN, and lack of any 
engagement and response from the involved civil society... parminder

McTim

See the .baby gtld proposal from J&J at  https://www.101domain.com/applications/1-1156-50969.htm

GAC advice on closed generics where it lists .baby among others as the  'problematic' kind, at  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf

GAC advice made a very valid point, any exclusive access to a gtld  'should serve a public interest goal', or that closed generics should  only be allowed if they specifically serve a public interest goal.

And J&J's response to GAC advice is at  http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/applicants/23may13/gac-advice-response-1-1156-50969-en.pdf

Which is really no response, and shows nowhere how a public interest  goal is served by allowing an exclusive access to J&J and its partners,  plus whoever it likes, to the gtld .baby .

So, yes, indeed, not only is .baby a closed generic, GAC explicitly  objected to having closed generics unless a clear public interest could  be established in such an allocation.

J&J obviously could not show any public interest served by giving .baby  to it as a closed generic.

Still, ICANN goes ahead and gives .baby to J&J as a closed generic, and  pockets a cool $3,088,888.

So much so for ICANN being a public interest body. It is simply a key  node of the global Internet illegitimately captured by some people and  some interests, and the only actor who can do something about it, the US
gov, looks the other way because it serves a huge lot of its strategic  interests to do so... One cannot understand what and how public interest  will be served now with the proposal that ICANN becomes more or less
accountable to none, which is the direction of the IANA transition process.

parminder

On Thursday 18 December 2014 06:27 PM, McTim wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> It is indeed a sorry state when one jumps to conclusions.
>
> Specification 11 of the Registry Agreement, says, in part:
>
>
> d.Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose
> eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit
> registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that
> person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the
> Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a
> word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods,
> services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to
> distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups,
> organizations or things from those of others.
>
>
>
>
> So unless you have evidence that the winner of .baby has successfully
> stricken this from the RA, I would suggest that you are incorrect
> about this being a closed generic.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:52 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     It really hurts deeply to my public and political convictions when
>     a generic term of language like 'baby' is auctioned off to the
>     highest bidder for a certain, extremely important, exclusive use.
>     What public interest has been served here? Is there anyone to ask
>     this question? And I direct this question specifically to that
>     part of the civil society which the rest of the world would trust
>     should be asking the questions in the ICANN's context.
>
>     Any trademark authority would have rejected out of hand if Johnson
>     and Johnson had sought 'baby' as a trademark for itself. The
>     reasons are obvious. But those reasons do not mean anything to
>     ICANN, and perhaps neither to civil society groups associated with
>     ICANN.
>
>     But the trademark authorities are expressly public interest
>     bodies, under public authorities, which are in turn subject to
>     institutionalised public oversight and accountability.
>
>     ICANN on the other hand is a system captured by a group of people,
>     who have developed the perfect means and system to keep all those
>     close by and powerful happy in different ways - it uses the
>     euphemism 'stakeholders' for them.
>
>     Most of all, it keeps the big daddy, the US happy, by employing
>     various means to support its  reign over theglobalInternet - it
>     keeps a boisterous IG circuit in play that supports the status
>     quo, and drowns out every other voice. This has been done very
>     effectively till now. Btw, which technical governance mandate
>     ICANN was pursuing to propose and set up the World Economic Forum
>     based new Net Mundial Initiative, which is simply a way to divert
>     global demands for addressing pressing Internet related public
>     policy issues. This is done directly to appease US government's
>     political interest, which ICANN has no business to be doing.. And
>     then it keep the domain name industry happy and prospering, and
>     also other major industries.... This group of people, which goes
>     in the name of ICANN, does all this using the enormous funds that
>     it illegally collects as a tax from global public using the
>     Internet. This is where the money goes, and it produces conditions
>     for further extraction.
>
>     It is a sorry state.
>
>     parminder
>
>
>
>     On Thursday 18 December 2014 11:18 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
>         How long that will continue/last will be a question to answer
>         in near
>         future.
>
>         Cheers!
>
>         sent from Google nexus 4
>         kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>         On 18 Dec 2014 02:02, "Carlton Samuels"
>         <carlton.samuels at gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>
>         wrote:
>
>             The money pile grows...
>
>             -Carlton
>
>             ==============================
>             Carlton A Samuels
>             Mobile: 876-818-1799 <tel:876-818-1799>
>             *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>             =============================
>
>
>                [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert
>
>             https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-12-17-en
>             ------------------------------
>             Results Available for 17 December 2014 New gTLD Program
>             Auction
>
>             17 December 2014
>
>             On 17 December 2014, Power Auctions LLC
>             <http://www.powerauctions.com/>,
>             ICANN's authorized auction service provider, conducted a
>             New gTLD Program
>             Auction to resolve string contention for two new generic
>             top-level domain
>             (gTLD) strings: .BABY and .MLS. Applicants for these
>             strings were unable to
>             resolve contention among themselves; thus their contention
>             sets proceeded
>             to auction, which is the method of last resort to resolve
>             string contention
>             as prescribed in Module 4 of the New gTLD Program
>             Applicant Guidebook
>             <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb>. Subject to
>             payment of the
>             winning price and meeting all other criteria for
>             eligibility, the winner
>             will enter ICANN's contracting process to sign a Registry
>             Agreement to
>             operate the respective gTLD.
>
>             Six applicants participated in the auction for .BABY.
>             Johnson & Johnson
>             Services Inc. prevailed with a winning price of $3,088,888.
>
>             Two applicants participated in the auction for MLS. The
>             Canadian Real
>             Estate Association prevailed with a winning price of
>             $3,359,000.
>
>             All proceeds from the Auction are being segregated and
>             withheld from use
>             until ICANN's Board of Directors define a plan for an
>             appropriate use of
>             the funds through consultation with the community.
>             More Information
>
>                 - Auction Results webpage
>                 <
>             https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults
>
>                 :
>
>                 Auction reports on this page on the New gTLD Microsite
>             provide
>             additional
>                 information on bidding.
>                 - Auction proceeds and costs
>
>             <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds>:
>             A detailed
>                 summary of the proceeds and costs of all auctions
>             conducted through
>                 November 2014. This information is updated at the end
>             of each month.
>                 - Auctions schedule
>                 <
>             http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/schedule-12dec14-en.pdf>
>                 [PDF, 253 KB]: Subsequent auctions are scheduled to
>             occur on a monthly
>                 basis throughout 2014 and into early 2015. Auction
>             events are intended
>             to
>                 resolve multiple contention sets simultaneously.
>                 - General New gTLD Program Auctions
>                 <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions>
>             information.
>             _______________________________________________
>             At-Large mailing list
>             At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>             <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>             https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
>             At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         At-Large mailing list
>         At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>         <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>         https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
>         At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     At-Large mailing list
>     At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>     <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>     https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
>     At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org




From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 23:42:11 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 05:42:11 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Results Available for 17
 December 2014 New gTLD Program Auction
In-Reply-To: <549394AC.1030309@itforchange.net>
References: <5492F801.3090200@itforchange.net>
	<549394AC.1030309@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6gB-MATNnf_UMWwT6CBNNg_wm4sVR-izcj7GFguksGObw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello parminder,

I happen to also be on the other list you referred but I am trying to
understand what you mean by ICANN violating public interest in this
context. Is the public interest the policy by which ICANN allocate names or
the community developed policy? Generally in the naming world (both cctld
and gTLD) there are reserved names (names recognised to be unique) and they
are usually reserved by the operator for 2 main reasons:
- To make more money
- To serve specific community.

Usually both of those goals may not be achieved for a particular string. So
.baby I presume was reserved on reason 1 and they did business. On a
lighter note though, what I wonder is how an organisation can be so dumb to
spend so much to get a domain but again business strategy can look dumb on
paper until implemented.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Dec 2014 04:00, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Forwarding an email exchange from another elist, highlighting some facts
> about a serious violation of public interest by ICANN, and lack of any
> engagement and response from the involved civil society... parminder
>
> McTim
>
> See the .baby gtld proposal from J&J at  https://www.101domain.com/
> applications/1-1156-50969.htm
>
> GAC advice on closed generics where it lists .baby among others as the
> 'problematic' kind, at  https://www.icann.org/en/
> system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf
>
> GAC advice made a very valid point, any exclusive access to a gtld
> 'should serve a public interest goal', or that closed generics should  only
> be allowed if they specifically serve a public interest goal.
>
> And J&J's response to GAC advice is at  http://newgtlds.icann.org/
> sites/default/files/applicants/23may13/gac-advice-
> response-1-1156-50969-en.pdf
>
> Which is really no response, and shows nowhere how a public interest  goal
> is served by allowing an exclusive access to J&J and its partners,  plus
> whoever it likes, to the gtld .baby .
>
> So, yes, indeed, not only is .baby a closed generic, GAC explicitly
> objected to having closed generics unless a clear public interest could  be
> established in such an allocation.
>
> J&J obviously could not show any public interest served by giving .baby
> to it as a closed generic.
>
> Still, ICANN goes ahead and gives .baby to J&J as a closed generic, and
> pockets a cool $3,088,888.
>
> So much so for ICANN being a public interest body. It is simply a key
> node of the global Internet illegitimately captured by some people and
> some interests, and the only actor who can do something about it, the US
> gov, looks the other way because it serves a huge lot of its strategic
> interests to do so... One cannot understand what and how public interest
> will be served now with the proposal that ICANN becomes more or less
> accountable to none, which is the direction of the IANA transition process.
>
> parminder
>
> On Thursday 18 December 2014 06:27 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>> Parminder,
>>
>> It is indeed a sorry state when one jumps to conclusions.
>>
>> Specification 11 of the Registry Agreement, says, in part:
>>
>>
>> d.Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose
>> eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit
>> registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that
>> person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the
>> Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a
>> word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods,
>> services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to
>> distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups,
>> organizations or things from those of others.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So unless you have evidence that the winner of .baby has successfully
>> stricken this from the RA, I would suggest that you are incorrect
>> about this being a closed generic.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:52 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     It really hurts deeply to my public and political convictions when
>>     a generic term of language like 'baby' is auctioned off to the
>>     highest bidder for a certain, extremely important, exclusive use.
>>     What public interest has been served here? Is there anyone to ask
>>     this question? And I direct this question specifically to that
>>     part of the civil society which the rest of the world would trust
>>     should be asking the questions in the ICANN's context.
>>
>>     Any trademark authority would have rejected out of hand if Johnson
>>     and Johnson had sought 'baby' as a trademark for itself. The
>>     reasons are obvious. But those reasons do not mean anything to
>>     ICANN, and perhaps neither to civil society groups associated with
>>     ICANN.
>>
>>     But the trademark authorities are expressly public interest
>>     bodies, under public authorities, which are in turn subject to
>>     institutionalised public oversight and accountability.
>>
>>     ICANN on the other hand is a system captured by a group of people,
>>     who have developed the perfect means and system to keep all those
>>     close by and powerful happy in different ways - it uses the
>>     euphemism 'stakeholders' for them.
>>
>>     Most of all, it keeps the big daddy, the US happy, by employing
>>     various means to support its  reign over theglobalInternet - it
>>     keeps a boisterous IG circuit in play that supports the status
>>     quo, and drowns out every other voice. This has been done very
>>     effectively till now. Btw, which technical governance mandate
>>     ICANN was pursuing to propose and set up the World Economic Forum
>>     based new Net Mundial Initiative, which is simply a way to divert
>>     global demands for addressing pressing Internet related public
>>     policy issues. This is done directly to appease US government's
>>     political interest, which ICANN has no business to be doing.. And
>>     then it keep the domain name industry happy and prospering, and
>>     also other major industries.... This group of people, which goes
>>     in the name of ICANN, does all this using the enormous funds that
>>     it illegally collects as a tax from global public using the
>>     Internet. This is where the money goes, and it produces conditions
>>     for further extraction.
>>
>>     It is a sorry state.
>>
>>     parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Thursday 18 December 2014 11:18 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>
>>         How long that will continue/last will be a question to answer
>>         in near
>>         future.
>>
>>         Cheers!
>>
>>         sent from Google nexus 4
>>         kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>         On 18 Dec 2014 02:02, "Carlton Samuels"
>>         <carlton.samuels at gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>
>>         wrote:
>>
>>             The money pile grows...
>>
>>             -Carlton
>>
>>             ==============================
>>             Carlton A Samuels
>>             Mobile: 876-818-1799 <tel:876-818-1799>
>>             *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>>             =============================
>>
>>
>>                [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert
>>
>>             https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-12-17-en
>>             ------------------------------
>>             Results Available for 17 December 2014 New gTLD Program
>>             Auction
>>
>>             17 December 2014
>>
>>             On 17 December 2014, Power Auctions LLC
>>             <http://www.powerauctions.com/>,
>>             ICANN's authorized auction service provider, conducted a
>>             New gTLD Program
>>             Auction to resolve string contention for two new generic
>>             top-level domain
>>             (gTLD) strings: .BABY and .MLS. Applicants for these
>>             strings were unable to
>>             resolve contention among themselves; thus their contention
>>             sets proceeded
>>             to auction, which is the method of last resort to resolve
>>             string contention
>>             as prescribed in Module 4 of the New gTLD Program
>>             Applicant Guidebook
>>             <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb>. Subject to
>>             payment of the
>>             winning price and meeting all other criteria for
>>             eligibility, the winner
>>             will enter ICANN's contracting process to sign a Registry
>>             Agreement to
>>             operate the respective gTLD.
>>
>>             Six applicants participated in the auction for .BABY.
>>             Johnson & Johnson
>>             Services Inc. prevailed with a winning price of $3,088,888.
>>
>>             Two applicants participated in the auction for MLS. The
>>             Canadian Real
>>             Estate Association prevailed with a winning price of
>>             $3,359,000.
>>
>>             All proceeds from the Auction are being segregated and
>>             withheld from use
>>             until ICANN's Board of Directors define a plan for an
>>             appropriate use of
>>             the funds through consultation with the community.
>>             More Information
>>
>>                 - Auction Results webpage
>>                 <
>>             https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/
>> applicationstatus/auctionresults
>>
>>                 :
>>
>>                 Auction reports on this page on the New gTLD Microsite
>>             provide
>>             additional
>>                 information on bidding.
>>                 - Auction proceeds and costs
>>
>>             <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds>:
>>             A detailed
>>                 summary of the proceeds and costs of all auctions
>>             conducted through
>>                 November 2014. This information is updated at the end
>>             of each month.
>>                 - Auctions schedule
>>                 <
>>             http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/schedule-
>> 12dec14-en.pdf>
>>                 [PDF, 253 KB]: Subsequent auctions are scheduled to
>>             occur on a monthly
>>                 basis throughout 2014 and into early 2015. Auction
>>             events are intended
>>             to
>>                 resolve multiple contention sets simultaneously.
>>                 - General New gTLD Program Auctions
>>                 <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions>
>>             information.
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             At-Large mailing list
>>             At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>             <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>             https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>
>>             At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         At-Large mailing list
>>         At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>         <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>         https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>
>>         At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     At-Large mailing list
>>     At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>     <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>     https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>
>>     At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141219/36b3740b/attachment.htm>

From bkilic at citizen.org  Fri Dec 19 14:16:14 2014
From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:16:14 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <54928068.2090108@itforchange.net>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <54928068.2090108@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB49BE6@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>


Thank you Parminder.  I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Just saw this today, it might be of interest to you.
Cheers,
Burcu

INDIA: Government may reverse opposition to trade in services agreement
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/rmX1qpA7UPNhwXZmCBb1tI/Government-may-reverse-opposition-to-trade-in-services-agree.html

Government is exploring the possibility of joining TISA or making a new proposal in services in the Doha round of talks

TISA is a trade pact currently being negotiated by 23 members of WTO, including the US.

New Delhi: I n order to further exploit its inherent advantages in the services sector, India is contemplating reversing its opposition to the plurilateral trade in services agreement (TISA) under the World Trade Organization (WTO), a commerce ministry official said.
India is exploring the possibility of joining TISA or making a fresh proposal in services in the Doha Round of WTO negotiations, the official said, requesting anonymity.

TISA is a trade agreement currently being negotiated by 23 members of WTO, including the US and the European Union. Together, these countries account for 70% of world trade in services.

Launched in April 2013, TISA aims at opening up markets and improving rules in areas such as licensing, financial services, telecoms, e-commerce, maritime transport, and professionals moving abroad temporarily to provide services.

“TISA give you an opportunity to access markets in areas where you have strength. Is it not good for us to really explore and see how the elements that have come into TISA on account of technology thresholds, and on account of broader commitments coming out of TISA being a much better agreement than General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)? Is it not worthwhile for us to explore if TISA could be a good opportunity for us?” the commerce ministry official asked.

The official said services should also be an inherent part of the Make in India programme launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “If we don’t address issues, which require regulatory reforms in many of these services areas, whether they are logistics, professional services, tourism, healthcare, India has a huge potential out there and we should take benefit out of these through reforms,” he added.

India should not make a negative connotation about TISA and should keep its option open to join it, said T.S. Vishwanath, principal adviser with APJ-SLG Law Offices. “We should not be left napping when such an important agreement is being negotiated. But if we want to join we should join it when negotiations are on so that we can secure our interests,” he said. “There is no point joining TISA after negotiations are over.”

Services contributed 57% to India’s economy in 2013-14. India’s annual export of services is pegged at $151.47 billion in 2013-14, while the export of merchandise stands at $312.5 billion during the same year.

To boost its services exports, which is currently dominated by information technology (IT) and IT-enabled services (ITeS), India has been organizing services conclaves for the past two years. The focus of these conclaves has been to explore new opportunities and identify the challenges in services exports, and create a road map for its sustained and accelerated growth so that the gap between merchandise and services exports narrow.

The official said the whole problem in services is that technology is moving so fast that laws and legislative reforms are not catching up. “There is no reason why technology improvements and legislative reforms can’t keep pace. But if we can boast of being IT industry leaders, then there is no reason why our regulatory processes and technology can’t keep pace. We should find ways of doing that,” he added.

The other option that India has is to present a fresh proposal to the WTO services-related negotiating bodies.
“We submitted a revised offer in 2005 and did a signalling in 2008, why can’t we do signalling now? So much of technology has come in, so much of legal reform has taken place, why can’t now at this stage we go to WTO and say that we are now prepared to offer another set of revised offers,” the official added.

He said this would help in two ways. “One that will hit at the basis of TISA and two, it will get all developing countries together. Because ultimately, to take example of Africa, it may not be a great market for services today, but 10 years down the lane it will be. So we can work towards building new architecture which has potential to evolve in next 10-15 years,” he added.

In services, India has not really gone the way a leading services providing country should have, the official said. “There is a reason for us to work towards seeking domestic regulatory reforms secondly, marry technology with evolution of laws and take a little bold steps to see how you can re-energize the multilateral trading system once again,” he added.

India has little option left but to join TISA as the normal Doha track seems not to be moving fast enough, said Biswajit Dhar, professor of economics in Jawaharlal Nehru University. “But unless we clearly mark out our offensive interests, it will be disastrous if we get into such negotiations and start playing defensive,” he said.



From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 2:21 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality


This below is a very important development, and the analysis<https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/analisis.cleaned.pdf> by Prof Kelsey and Dr Kilic is really really good.

The upshot in my view is; the global Internet would finally be governed, has to be governed, like any other important social system. The real question that we face, especially in the context of these new revelations, is; whether

(1) the Internet should be governed as a 'trade system', and among a few willing countries, which represent the most powerful countries plus those who are willing to partake of the fruits of cooptation, or


(2)  it should be governed as a unique new global infrastructure of communication, information, and social organizing (and thus of many a social system, including trade) in venues that are open to all countries of the world, more powerful or less, big or small.

(Included in the above is the question whether the key value flow on the Internet, data, is to be considered in a framework of its multiferous enmeshment with many sectors of our society, or just as a commodity for trade, with some minor 'exceptions' admitted here and there.)

One would think that for a civil society group the above is a simple choice to make. But unfortunately, most civil society actors in the IG space have focussed on narrow specific issues missing this larger framework, and thus missing the wood for the tree. Willy nilly, in my view, it amounts to complicity with option 1 above .

Kelsey and Kilc's analysis begins with a very pertinent listing of US' objectives. While all three listed objectives are instructive, I especially quote no 3

"prevent or restrict government regulation that impedes the activities and profits of the major global services industries, and guarantees unrestricted cross-border data flows, which impacts on consumer protections, privacy laws, regulatory constraints and competition policy."

How effective the US strategy has been on this count is obvious... It has kept the IG world embroiled in the multistakehoder versus multilateral debate as it goes ahead building the global architecture of IG and of the Internet through its secret agreements like the TISA. When the pressure becomes too much, like post Snowden, it throws a NTIA transition ball for kids to play with, which is both the not most important global IG issues, and even in its best possible outcome does not really change much. But quite good to divert people' thinking and energy for a year or two. And if one asks, but what about non-tech issues, it comes up with the WEF based NetMundial Initiative, and gets enthusiastic civil society backers - though anyone will ask the question, how the US push to prevent public interest governance of the Internet for the sake of protecting its big business interests (see the quote above) is addressed by new forums where those very big business interests will now direct participate in public policy development. But then...

parminder


On Wednesday 17 December 2014 09:17 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org<mailto:mstlouis at citizen.org>>
Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net neutrality, data privacy implicated
To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org<mailto:tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>>

http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf

For Immediate Release:

Contact:

Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741<tel:%28202%29%20588-7741>, abradbery at citizen.org<mailto:abradbery at citizen.org>

Dec. 17, 2014





Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108<tel:%28202%29%20454-5108>, ssanders at citizen.org<mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>


Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections
U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement

WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.

The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.

“This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”

Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”

With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.

Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.


For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo<https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public Citizen.



###

Symone D. Sanders
Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
Office: 202.454.5108<tel:202.454.5108> | Cell: 402-671-8118<tel:402-671-8118>
Email:  ssanders at citizen.org<mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
Website: www.tradewatch.org<http://www.tradewatch.org/>
Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP


---

You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>.

To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org<mailto:leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org>


--
--
Carolina Rossini
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini





____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.

To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:

     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141219/1426a091/attachment.htm>

From tisrael at cippic.ca  Fri Dec 19 14:26:02 2014
From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:26:02 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <54928068.2090108@itforchange.net>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com> <54928068.2090108@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54947BCA.6040105@cippic.ca>

Good points Parminder.

I think the paper points this out as well, and agree that the context
for these trade agreements is not ideal as an internet governance
mechanism.

Take the local storage restriction. If this was being discussed in a
/non-/trade context, the exceptions would be crafted to permit
restrictions that are designed to protect privacy, etc., but /forbid/
the ones that facilitate censorship, are directed at
anti-competitiveness, etc. We would also, presumably, have some actual
requirements to put in place legal protections for privacy as we do in
other regional instruments designed to facilitate cross-border flows. 
In a trade negotiation, though, where public input is not only muted but
actively avoided through secrecy measures, you get a national security
exception, broader IP protections and little else.

Definitely, where EU countries are involved, the privacy restrictions
are likely to be moderated, but that does not help for, say, the TPP.

Best,
Tamir


On 18/12/2014 2:21 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> This below is a very important development, and the analysis
> <https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/analisis.cleaned.pdf> by Prof
> Kelsey and Dr Kilic is really really good.
>
> The upshot in my view is; the global Internet would finally be
> governed, has to be governed, like any other important social system.
> The real question that we face, especially in the context of these new
> revelations, is; whether
>
> (1) the Internet should be governed as a 'trade system', and among a
> few willing countries, which represent the most powerful countries
> plus those who are willing to partake of the fruits of cooptation, or
>
>
> (2)Â  it should be governed as a/unique new global infrastructure of
> communication, information, and social organizing/ (and thus of many a
> social system, including trade) in venues that are open to all
> countries of the world, more powerful or less, big or small.
>
> (Included in the above is the question whether the key value flow on
> the Internet, data, is to be considered in a framework of its
> multiferous enmeshment with many sectors of our society, or just as a
> commodity for trade, with some minor 'exceptions' admitted here and
> there.)
>
> One would think that for a civil society group the above is a simple
> choice to make. But unfortunately, most civil society actors in the IG
> space have focussed on narrow specific issues missing this larger
> framework, and thus missing the wood for the tree. Willy nilly, in my
> view, it amounts to complicity with option 1 above .
>
> Kelsey and Kilc's analysis begins with a very pertinent listing of US'
> objectives. While all three listed objectives are instructive, I
> especially quote no 3
>
> "prevent or restrict government regulation that impedes the activities
> and profits of the major global services industries, and guarantees
> unrestricted cross-border data flows, which impacts on consumer
> protections, privacy laws, regulatory constraints and competition policy."
>
> How effective the US strategy has been on this count is obvious... It
> has kept the IG world embroiled in the multistakehoder versus
> multilateral debate as it goes ahead building the global architecture
> of IG and of the Internet through its secret agreements like the TISA.
> When the pressure becomes too much, like post Snowden, it throws a
> NTIA transition ball for kids to play with, which is both the not most
> important global IG issues, and even in its best possible outcome does
> not really change much. But quite good to divert people' thinking and
> energy for a year or two. And if one asks, but what about non-tech
> issues, it comes up with the WEF based NetMundial Initiative, and gets
> enthusiastic civil society backers - though anyone will ask the
> question, how the US push to prevent public interest governance of the
> Internet for the sake of protecting its big business interests (see
> the quote above) is addressed by new forums where those very big
> business interests will now direct participate in public policy
> development. But then...
>
> parminder 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 17 December 2014 09:17 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing
>> distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Melinda St. Louis* <mstlouis at citizen.org
>> <mailto:mstlouis at citizen.org>>
>> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
>> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net
>> neutrality, data privacy implicated
>> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org
>> <mailto:tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>>
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> _For Immediate Release_:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> _Contact_:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741 <tel:%28202%29%20588-7741>,
>> abradbery at citizen.org <mailto:abradbery at citizen.org>
>>
>> Dec. 17, 2014
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108 <tel:%28202%29%20454-5108>,
>> ssanders at citizen.org <mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> *Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals
>> Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy
>> Protections*//
>>
>> */U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in
>> Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in
>> Services Agreement /*
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> WASHINGTON, D.C. â?? While a domestic debate about net neutrality
>> rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a
>> U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to
>> both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to
>> which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to
>> e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed**Trade in Services
>> Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country
>> subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require
>> signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations
>> and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA;
>> failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions.
>> Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> â??This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to
>> trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door
>> international â??tradeâ?? negotiations to which industry interests
>> have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting
>> consumer interests are shut out,â?? said Lori Wallach, director of
>> Public Citizenâ??s Global Trade Watch. â??Given the raging domestic
>> debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy
>> and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret
>> that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories
>> seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance
>> policies.â??
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, â??The Internet
>> belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free
>> Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking
>> to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and
>> are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the
>> input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind
>> closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes
>> an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives
>> and expertise needed to make good policy.â??
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the
>> U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for
>> unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements
>> to hold and process data locally, thus removing governmentsâ??
>> ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored
>> and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical,
>> financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made
>> public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal
>> recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are
>> pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably
>> stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data
>> movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed
>> progress would be foreclosed.
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications
>> for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo
>> <https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written by
>> Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and
>> Kilic of Public Citizen.
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> ###
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> *Symone D. Sanders *
>>
>> *Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch*
>>
>> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
>>
>> Office: 202.454.5108 <tel:202.454.5108> | Cell: 402-671-8118
>> <tel:402-671-8118>
>>
>> Email:Â  ssanders at citizen.org <mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
>>
>> Website: www.tradewatch.org <http://www.tradewatch.org/>
>>
>> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>>
>> Â 
>>
>> ---
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as:
>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>.
>>
>> To unsubscribe click here:
>> http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
>>
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is
>> broken)
>>
>> or send a blank email to
>> leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
>> <mailto:leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> --Â 
>> /Carolina Rossini /
>> /Vice President, International Policy/
>> *Public Knowledge*
>> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>> + 1 6176979389 |Â skype: carolrossini |Â @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141219/a98bad79/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141219/a98bad79/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Dec 20 01:16:01 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:46:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB49BE6@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com> <54928068.2090108@itforchange.net> <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB49BE6@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com>
Message-ID: <54951421.5070105@itforchange.net>


Thanks Brucu, I hadnt seen this news.

It is worrying if India was to join in, although the quoted official 
seems to suggest that India is considering both options, joining in to 
TISA, or go to WTO's full membership. Although I have seen in the new 
Indian government a greater predilection to play the 'big boys club' 
game and I can see why TISA holds such an attraction.

This new development even more clearly shows why a full multilateral 
approach is better for larger global public interest than a closed 
plurilateral one. Secondly, especially for people here involved in IG, 
it is better to have a committed multilateral venue for consideration of 
Internet as, and I am repeating, a new unique convergent global 
infrastructure for communication, information and social organising, and 
also treating data within this framework, rather than trade negotiations 
being allowed to determine the architecture of the Internet, and the 
nature of what data means to us.

I cant resist mentioning here how India's proposal 
<http://itforchange.net/Techgovernance/IndiaCIRP>to have a global 
multilateral body, with an extra-ordinary multistakeholder 
participation, to treat Internet in, well, an Internet-centric way, was 
rebuffed by much of the civil society here. Now if India moves away both 
from multilateral to plurilateral approaches, and from an 
Internet-centric to trade-centric approaches, that particular fact 
should take a good part of the blame. Treating Internet first in an 
Internet-centric way of course does not mean that it would then not 
figure in trade talks and treaties. However, is possible to frame some 
essential principles and norms in the 'Internet space' which then frame 
and bind what happens in trade talks.

parminder

On Saturday 20 December 2014 12:46 AM, Burcu Kilic wrote:
>
> Thank you Parminder.  I couldn’t have said it better myself.
>
> Just saw this today, it might be of interest to you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Burcu
>
> *INDIA: Government may reverse opposition to trade in services agreement*
>
> *http://www.livemint.com/Politics/rmX1qpA7UPNhwXZmCBb1tI/Government-may-reverse-opposition-to-trade-in-services-agree.html*
>
> **
>
> Government is exploring the possibility of joining TISA or making a 
> new proposal in services in the Doha round of talks
>
> TISA is a trade pact currently being negotiated by 23 members of WTO, 
> including the US.
>
> *New Delhi: I*n order to further exploit its inherent advantages in 
> the services sector, India is contemplating reversing its opposition 
> to the plurilateral trade in services agreement (TISA) under the World 
> Trade Organization (WTO), a commerce ministry official said.
>
> India is exploring the possibility of joining TISA or making a fresh 
> proposal in services in the Doha Round of WTO negotiations, the 
> official said, requesting anonymity.
>
> TISA is a trade agreement currently being negotiated by 23 members of 
> WTO, including the US and the European Union. Together, these 
> countries account for 70% of world trade in services.
>
> Launched in April 2013, TISA aims at opening up markets and improving 
> rules in areas such as licensing, financial services, telecoms, 
> e-commerce, maritime transport, and professionals moving abroad 
> temporarily to provide services.
>
> “TISA give you an opportunity to access markets in areas where you 
> have strength. Is it not good for us to really explore and see how the 
> elements that have come into TISA on account of technology thresholds, 
> and on account of broader commitments coming out of TISA being a much 
> better agreement than General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)? 
> Is it not worthwhile for us to explore if TISA could be a good 
> opportunity for us?” the commerce ministry official asked.
>
> The official said services should also be an inherent part of the Make 
> in India programme launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “If we 
> don’t address issues, which require regulatory reforms in many of 
> these services areas, whether they are logistics, professional 
> services, tourism, healthcare, India has a huge potential out there 
> and we should take benefit out of these through reforms,” he added.
>
> India should not make a negative connotation about TISA and should 
> keep its option open to join it, said T.S. Vishwanath, principal 
> adviser with APJ-SLG Law Offices. “We should not be left napping when 
> such an important agreement is being negotiated. But if we want to 
> join we should join it when negotiations are on so that we can secure 
> our interests,” he said. “There is no point joining TISA after 
> negotiations are over.”
>
> Services contributed 57% to India’s economy in 2013-14. India’s annual 
> export of services is pegged at $151.47 billion in 2013-14, while the 
> export of merchandise stands at $312.5 billion during the same year.
>
> To boost its services exports, which is currently dominated by 
> information technology (IT) and IT-enabled services (ITeS), India has 
> been organizing services conclaves for the past two years. The focus 
> of these conclaves has been to explore new opportunities and identify 
> the challenges in services exports, and create a road map for its 
> sustained and accelerated growth so that the gap between merchandise 
> and services exports narrow.
>
> The official said the whole problem in services is that technology is 
> moving so fast that laws and legislative reforms are not catching up. 
> “There is no reason why technology improvements and legislative 
> reforms can’t keep pace. But if we can boast of being IT industry 
> leaders, then there is no reason why our regulatory processes and 
> technology can’t keep pace. We should find ways of doing that,” he added.
>
> The other option that India has is to present a fresh proposal to the 
> WTO services-related negotiating bodies.
>
> “We submitted a revised offer in 2005 and did a signalling in 2008, 
> why can’t we do signalling now? So much of technology has come in, so 
> much of legal reform has taken place, why can’t now at this stage we 
> go to WTO and say that we are now prepared to offer another set of 
> revised offers,” the official added.
>
> He said this would help in two ways. “One that will hit at the basis 
> of TISA and two, it will get all developing countries together. 
> Because ultimately, to take example of Africa, it may not be a great 
> market for services today, but 10 years down the lane it will be. So 
> we can work towards building new architecture which has potential to 
> evolve in next 10-15 years,” he added.
>
> In services, India has not really gone the way a leading services 
> providing country should have, the official said. “There is a reason 
> for us to work towards seeking domestic regulatory reforms secondly, 
> marry technology with evolution of laws and take a little bold steps 
> to see how you can re-energize the multilateral trading system once 
> again,” he added.
>
> India has little option left but to join TISA as the normal Doha track 
> seems not to be moving fast enough, said Biswajit Dhar, professor of 
> economics in Jawaharlal Nehru University. “But unless we clearly mark 
> out our offensive interests, it will be disastrous if we get into such 
> negotiations and start playing defensive,” he said.
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 2:21 AM
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
>
>
> This below is a very important development, and the analysis 
> <https://data.awp.is/data/filtrala/15/analisis.cleaned.pdf> by Prof 
> Kelsey and Dr Kilic is really really good.
>
> The upshot in my view is; the global Internet would finally be 
> governed, has to be governed, like any other important social system. 
> The real question that we face, especially in the context of these new 
> revelations, is; whether
>
> (1) the Internet should be governed as a 'trade system', and among a 
> few willing countries, which represent the most powerful countries 
> plus those who are willing to partake of the fruits of cooptation, or
>
>
> (2)  it should be governed as a/unique new global infrastructure of 
> communication, information, and social organizing/ (and thus of many a 
> social system, including trade) in venues that are open to all 
> countries of the world, more powerful or less, big or small.
>
> (Included in the above is the question whether the key value flow on 
> the Internet, data, is to be considered in a framework of its 
> multiferous enmeshment with many sectors of our society, or just as a 
> commodity for trade, with some minor 'exceptions' admitted here and 
> there.)
>
> One would think that for a civil society group the above is a simple 
> choice to make. But unfortunately, most civil society actors in the IG 
> space have focussed on narrow specific issues missing this larger 
> framework, and thus missing the wood for the tree. Willy nilly, in my 
> view, it amounts to complicity with option 1 above .
>
> Kelsey and Kilc's analysis begins with a very pertinent listing of US' 
> objectives. While all three listed objectives are instructive, I 
> especially quote no 3
>
> "prevent or restrict government regulation that impedes the activities 
> and profits of the major global services industries, and guarantees 
> unrestricted cross-border data flows, which impacts on consumer 
> protections, privacy laws, regulatory constraints and competition policy."
>
> How effective the US strategy has been on this count is obvious... It 
> has kept the IG world embroiled in the multistakehoder versus 
> multilateral debate as it goes ahead building the global architecture 
> of IG and of the Internet through its secret agreements like the TISA. 
> When the pressure becomes too much, like post Snowden, it throws a 
> NTIA transition ball for kids to play with, which is both the not most 
> important global IG issues, and even in its best possible outcome does 
> not really change much. But quite good to divert people' thinking and 
> energy for a year or two. And if one asks, but what about non-tech 
> issues, it comes up with the WEF based NetMundial Initiative, and gets 
> enthusiastic civil society backers - though anyone will ask the 
> question, how the US push to prevent public interest governance of the 
> Internet for the sake of protecting its big business interests (see 
> the quote above) is addressed by new forums where those very big 
> business interests will now direct participate in public policy 
> development. But then...
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Wednesday 17 December 2014 09:17 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>
>     press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing
>     distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>
>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     From: *Melinda St. Louis* <mstlouis at citizen.org
>     <mailto:mstlouis at citizen.org>>
>     Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
>     Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak:
>     net neutrality, data privacy implicated
>     To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org
>     <mailto:tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>>
>
>     http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>
>     _For Immediate Release_:
>
>     	
>
>     _Contact_:
>
>     	
>
>     Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741 <tel:%28202%29%20588-7741>,
>     abradbery at citizen.org <mailto:abradbery at citizen.org>
>
>     Dec. 17, 2014
>
>     	
>
>     	
>
>     Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108 <tel:%28202%29%20454-5108>,
>     ssanders at citizen.org <mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
>
>     *Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals
>     Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy
>     Protections*
>
>     */U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in
>     Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in
>     Services Agreement /*
>
>     WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality
>     rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow,
>     a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues
>     related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade
>     talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said
>     Public Citizen.
>
>     The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to
>     e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed**Trade in Services
>     Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a
>     50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact
>     would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their
>     laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the
>     provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country
>     to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and
>     implement the pact next year.
>
>     “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to
>     trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door
>     international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests
>     have privileged access while the public and policy experts
>     promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach,
>     director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging
>     domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more
>     data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact
>     negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent
>     consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be
>     setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”
>
>     Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet
>     belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free
>     Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are
>     seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet
>     functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not
>     subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules
>     internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic
>     discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the
>     domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise
>     needed to make good policy.”
>
>     With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that
>     the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for
>     unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on
>     requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing
>     governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal
>     data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure
>     privacy.
>
>     Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical,
>     financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not
>     made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no
>     legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S.
>     organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which
>     are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA
>     terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United
>     States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
>
>     For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its
>     implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this
>     memo <https://data.awp.is/filtrala/2014/12/17/19.html> co-written
>     by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law,
>     and Kilic of Public Citizen.
>
>     ###
>
>     *Symone D. Sanders *
>
>     *Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch*
>
>     215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
>
>     Office: 202.454.5108 <tel:202.454.5108> | Cell: 402-671-8118
>     <tel:402-671-8118>
>
>     Email: ssanders at citizen.org <mailto:ssanders at citizen.org>
>
>     Website: www.tradewatch.org <http://www.tradewatch.org/>
>
>     Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>
>     ---
>
>     You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as:
>     carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>.
>
>     To unsubscribe click here:
>     http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
>
>     (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is
>     broken)
>
>     or send a blank email to
>     leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
>     <mailto:leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     -- 
>
>     /Carolina Rossini /
>
>     /Vice President, International Policy/
>
>     *Public Knowledge*
>
>     _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>
>     + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>           bestbits at lists.bestbits.net  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>
>           http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141220/fcd8f9e9/attachment.htm>

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Sat Dec 20 06:38:01 2014
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:38:01 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] FYI- ICYMI- Summary report of IGF Open Consultations and
 MAG Meeting and call for Participation by 31 December 2014
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeHguVomwk+Ybi-N96Ebnvy5rMJYDRcP=tJMpkCSgHNGPw@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies of you receive multiple copies of this email.

The first Open Consultations and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)
Meeting in the IGF 2015 preparatory process took place on 1-3 December
2014, in Geneva, Switzerland. These consultations also took stock of the
IGF 2014 meeting, looking at what worked well and what did not.

​
The summary report of the meeting is available

here:
http://intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2015-joao-pessoa/422-december-2014-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting-summary-report/file
.

*​​Call for participation in defining the IGF 2015 overarching theme and
sub-themes*

During the December Open Consultations and MAG meeting, discussions were
initiated on defining the IGF 2015 overarching theme and sub-themes. A
number of proposals for both the overarching theme
​(
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/contributions/open-consultations/2014-december/420-igf-2015-overarching-theme-proposals-submitted-during-the-december-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting/file)
​
and sub-themes
​(
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/contributions/open-consultations/2014-december/421-igf-2015-sub-themes-proposals-submitted-during-the-december-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting/file)
​
were made during the meeting and discussions now continue via a dedicated
mailing list - igf2015_themes at intgovforum.org.

Stakeholders are invited to join this mailing list
​ (http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf2015_themes_intgovforum.org)​
and to express their support for some of the already proposed themes, to
suggest revisions to these themes or to propose new themes. The deadline
for such contributions is 31 December 2014.

*​​Call ​for stakeholders ​to Join Working Groups*

Please find below a list of the Working groups and associated mailing
lists. At the moment the default is public that anyone can join.

​

Working Group

*Mailing list name*

*Mailing list sign up page*

*Lead Facilitators*

IGF 2015 themes

igf2015_themes at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf2015_themes_intgovforum.org

Benedicto Fonseca Filho.

Intercessional activities

intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.org

Mourad Boukadoum,; Virat Bhatia; Avri Doria; Lynn St. Amour.

Main Session guidelines

ms_guidelines_2015 at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/ms_guidelines_2015_intgovforum.org

Flavio Wagner;  Subi Chaturvedi; Virginia  Paque.

Outreach communication

outreach_com_2015 at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/outreach_com_2015_intgovforum.org

Dominique Lazanski

Remote participation

rp_2015 at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/rp_2015_intgovforum.org

Ginger Paque.

Self-assessment of IGF

selfassesment_2015 at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/selfassesment_2015_intgovforum.org

Marilyn Cade.

Workshop evaluation, selection criteria, and mechanisms

ws_selection_2015 at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/ws_selection_2015_intgovforum.org
​

*​*
--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141220/ccaf53d9/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Dec  1 06:39:34 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:09:34 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <547C344A.9070808@acm.org>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org>
Message-ID: <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net>


On Monday 01 December 2014 02:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 01-Dec-14 04:56, Guru wrote:
>> The reason why many of us are concerned about Brazil participation in 
>> a space (WEF) that 'belongs' to the business elite of the world, is 
>> simply that many of us consider Brazil a global leader in supporting 
>> policies programmes for social justice, human rights, democracy. 
>
> And maybe they have come to the realization that is better to work 
> with the so-called elite and work to change them, than it is to remain 
> on the outside and vilify them.  Vilification may feel good and may 
> make one feel morally superior, but it gains very little in the long 
> run except for constant strife and division among ourselves.

If we  indeed generally are into being good and accommodative, perhaps 
we could be as giving and gracious with regard to the UN and its 
institutions as well, whether the ITU or a new possible space for 
Internet governance and policy. But we do not offer them similar 
considerations, do we. They are of course the bad guys. So bad that 
their vilification does not even qualify to be called as vilification.

UN or any such (institutionally) democratic form of global governance 
should be kept away from anything Internet! So, it is made to appear 
that the world will come to a halt  if the word Internet but gets into 
the ITRs of the ITU. And even if, at the ITU Plenipot, developing 
countries propose new studies and measures for data protection and 
against privacy intrusion, we look the other way, because, because, 
there are unknown terrors hiding behind anything that ITU does even if 
the intentions on the surface look good. Contribute in all ways possible 
to retard the WSIS plus 10 political process, the phase 3 of WSIS, and 
hope it just goes away somehow. (Look the other way when the developing 
countries seek a full WSIS style prep process, in Geneva, and developed 
countries simply refuse, and force on us just a small UN GA event.)

However, the WEF and the global elite deserves a chance! We should not 
vilify them! That to me and those of my kind of politics looks like a 
strange logic, but also something we have now come to expect in these 
spaces.

So, no, supporting the new WEF centred or initiated NMI is not just 
going along with anyone who is ready to work on key global IG issues. 
(We wont have any objection to any 'normal' WEF initiative in the IG 
space as they have in many other spaces.) /*This is a specific political 
choice exercised between the traditional global governance systems, like 
the UN based ones (how much ever in the need of reforms they might be) 
and new neoliberal governance systems like the WEF based one. The 
political responsibility for making this choice must be taken. */It 
cannot be dodged.

Do not make it look like an innocent choice; 'well let them also be 
given a chance when they are eager to contribute' kind of a thing. This 
is is basically one kind of global governance system rejected in the 
favour of other.... That is a stark political choice that a good part of 
IG related civil society made last week, and CGI.Br made, which we what 
we oppose. We have the right to be vociferous in our opposition, because 
both civil society actors and CGI.Br are responsible to the public.  But 
sure, of course we are the vilifiers in speaking of the WEF as 
representing the global elite, not those who foam at their mouth every 
time UN or the ITU is mentioned.

To anticipate the response I expect to this, something like, we will as 
happily participate in ITU/ UN if they too offer an equal footing 
arrangement like the WEF/ ICANN initiative has done. No, they cannot 
offer it, because unlike the WEF et al they are into serious business of 
global policy making in global public interest. Not in the business of 
obfuscating and retarding policy making, as neoliberal systems aim at 
(so that the powerful are left to their own devices). The same way as 
national political systems are into serious policy making and would 
never never, in no country, ever offer an equal footing arrangement at 
the policy making table. But sure WEF can offer this arrangement. 
Because it needs to make no policy, only resist legitimate policy 
making. And such resistance can very well get done through an equal 
footing arrangement.

Yes, morality is a big considerations in making these political choices, 
and not at all a bad word for us. It ought to be the bedrock of what 
motivates civil society not convenient political arrangements with the 
most powerful.

parminder





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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141201/cb6c7375/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Dec 22 08:55:45 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:25:45 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Help Decide the Global Congress 2015 Dates
Message-ID: <549822E1.1060409@cis-india.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


[Apologies for cross-posting]

Dear all,
As you might know, the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property
and the Public Interest will be happening in New Delhi, India, over
three days in December 2015.

We have a bit less than a year to go now, and we want your help in
deciding the precise dates of the congress.

The congress will have tracks on copyright & user rights, patents,
traditional knowledge, openness, and enforcement, and will have 'two
decades of the TRIPS agreement' and 'three decades of the free
software movement' as two of its underlying currents.

If you are potentially attending next year, please go through this
Doodle poll, and let us know what dates — between December 13 and
December 23, 2015 — would work best for you.

http://doodle.com/ni3wixrsqr5dqcgz

Please do pass this on to other people (and lists) that you think
would be interested in participating in the congress.

I will be closing the poll on *January 4, 2015*, so *please* do
respond by then!  If you have any additional queries, please feel free
to mail me directly.

Regards,
Pranesh

[on behalf of the organizing committee]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=tGy/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Wed Dec 24 10:03:02 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 20:33:02 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] A loud move to blatantly violate NETNeutrality
 principles
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0Hv9krptaT_F4GJD5CQ+WkicBeAKtBnTYyz-BA1gtHm2w@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.gsmarena.com/bharti_airtel_to_charge_for_voip_calls_over_2g_and_3g_in_india-news-10574.php


Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141224/4db36494/attachment.htm>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Wed Dec 24 11:57:09 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 17:57:09 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] A loud move to blatantly violate NETNeutrality
 principles
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0Hv9krptaT_F4GJD5CQ+WkicBeAKtBnTYyz-BA1gtHm2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHyAo0Hv9krptaT_F4GJD5CQ+WkicBeAKtBnTYyz-BA1gtHm2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6iYP6A5J8w2Ba=bM2jcoMiteCUWdKz1-2FO9Xg+Uy13jg@mail.gmail.com>

Beyond  net-neutrality the level of packet filtering/inspection that would
be required to effectively implement the policy is another point of concern.
In all these, one would wonder the role of national regulators as this is
beyond a normal business strategy which I expect should violate certain
operations rules put in place by regulators. Airtel is a major mobile
carrier in my region (Africa) and it will be a thing to watch-out for in my
region as well.

Thanks for sharing.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 Dec 2014 16:03, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> http://www.gsmarena.com/bharti_airtel_to_charge_for_voip_calls_over_2g_and_3g_in_india-news-10574.php
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141224/b6a4c754/attachment.htm>

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Wed Dec 24 13:18:55 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 23:48:55 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] A loud move to blatantly violate NETNeutrality
 principles
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6iYP6A5J8w2Ba=bM2jcoMiteCUWdKz1-2FO9Xg+Uy13jg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHyAo0Hv9krptaT_F4GJD5CQ+WkicBeAKtBnTYyz-BA1gtHm2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD_dc6iYP6A5J8w2Ba=bM2jcoMiteCUWdKz1-2FO9Xg+Uy13jg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0En55mKO9WXa-gkYcJQw+JYZQM-_7v-2mukD_GymwQQog@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Seun. The larger concern is that the telecoms are capturing Web
Applications, one after another. Regulators are also prone to ask for
surveillance deals as part of a scheme like this.

Sivasubramanian M

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Beyond  net-neutrality the level of packet filtering/inspection that would
> be required to effectively implement the policy is another point of concern.
> In all these, one would wonder the role of national regulators as this is
> beyond a normal business strategy which I expect should violate certain
> operations rules put in place by regulators. Airtel is a major mobile
> carrier in my region (Africa) and it will be a thing to watch-out for in my
> region as well.
>
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> Regards
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 24 Dec 2014 16:03, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','isolatedn at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.gsmarena.com/bharti_airtel_to_charge_for_voip_calls_over_2g_and_3g_in_india-news-10574.php
>>
>>
>> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141224/8dfc8f12/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Dec 24 13:21:37 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 18:21:37 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of
 its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
 Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

FYI and happy holidays!


Lee

________________________________
From: Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation Phase | NETmundial


https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and

Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20141224105832:B3E1D282-8B85-11E4-A91F-F4DD3793BE5A>     [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] <http://www.listbox.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141224/d1c1cdd3/attachment.htm>

From pouzin at well.com  Fri Dec 26 05:34:43 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:34:43 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation
 of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
 Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYo1erLc1eSn0_mk71tww=MY7MXtzYzf7cRkMZDfcOCpww@mail.gmail.com>

Superb NMI gibberish.
A perfect collection of usual suspects.
Thanks Dave, and interesting expectations for 2015.
Louis.
- - -

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

>  *From:* Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
> *To:* ip
> *Subject:* [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its
> Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation
> Phase | NETmundial
>
>
>
> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
>    <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141226/92703b70/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Dec 26 06:14:09 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:44:09 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: FW: [IP] NETmundial Initiative
 Announces Formation of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad
 Global Community Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYo1erLc1eSn0_mk71tww=MY7MXtzYzf7cRkMZDfcOCpww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com> <0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <CA+EjHYo1erLc1eSn0_mk71tww=MY7MXtzYzf7cRkMZDfcOCpww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <549D4301.3080808@itforchange.net>

I feel and share your acute disappointment Louis.

But I think there is more to it than the usual here. The US based 
'Internet power' establishment has made a (somewhat) genuine and perhaps 
successful cooptation, of the global elite, into a new power structure. 
Although it is too early to tell whether and how much will it succeed, 
but this new one with its 'apparent global nature' would be that much 
more difficult to directly target, much less beat. US is trying to shift 
attention away from the getting-too-hot-to-bear fact that it is just too 
powerful and too much at the centre of the Internet power system. (  
WSIS plus 10 is around the corner and one never knows what people/ 
countries may do given half a toehold, and this is the formal review of 
WSIS !!!) This is that attempt to shift attention by co-opting the 
//cr//è//me/ de la cr//è//me/ of the global elite. Yes, in fact it even 
may means some degree (very slight) of genuine giving away of power; but 
giving away to whom - an elite group chosen for their power in their 
respective spheres, and the interests represented by them. And well of 
course, the World Economic Forum is the perfect backdrop and stage, and 
also the perfect symbol, of such an unholy alliance of the powerful and 
the coopted.

With the emergence of this new configuration of Internet power, the 
dispossessed and the marginalised of the world took a hit today. They, 
and those who purport to work in their interest, will need to rethink 
and restrategise....

There will be work to do in 2015 :)

Wishing everyone a great 2015, and those taking a holiday, do take a 
good rest (but dont rest your convictions :), we will need all your 
energies in 2015)

parminder

On Friday 26 December 2014 04:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> Superb NMI gibberish.
> A perfect collection of usual suspects.
> Thanks Dave, and interesting expectations for 2015.
> Louis.
> - - -
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu 
> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote:
>
>     *From:* Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com <mailto:ip at listbox.com>>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
>     *To:* ip
>     *Subject:* [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its
>     Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
>     Consultation Phase | NETmundial
>
>     https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
>
>
>     	
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141226/3b1ec235/attachment.htm>

From iza at anr.org  Fri Dec 26 19:16:13 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 09:16:13 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation
 of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
 Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com>

I see at least two names from China as very interesting or significant:
Minister Lu Wei and Jack Ma of Alibaba, both were central figures at the
World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, China last month. Their
participation in this Multistakeholder venture is a good sign.

I also hope our Civil Society colleagues actively engage and advance our
core values.

Of course, there are certain or uncertain elements that are troublesome,
but I like to remain constructive, critical, but more positive.

And Happy holidays and New Year to all!!

Izumi
 2014/12/25 3:21 "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:

>  FYI and happy holidays!
>
>
>  Lee
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
> *To:* ip
> *Subject:* [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its
> Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation
> Phase | NETmundial
>
>
>
> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
>   Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07> | Modify
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>
> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20141224105832:B3E1D282-8B85-11E4-A91F-F4DD3793BE5A>
> <http://www.listbox.com/>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141227/1e78294c/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Dec 27 12:18:41 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 12:18:41 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of
 its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
 Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>	<0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <549EE9F1.4090909@acm.org>


Good point.

avri


On 26-Dec-14 19:16, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> I see at least two names from China as very interesting or
> significant: Minister Lu Wei and Jack Ma of Alibaba, both were central
> figures at the World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, China last
> month. Their participation in this Multistakeholder venture is a good
> sign.
>
> I also hope our Civil Society colleagues actively engage and advance
> our core values.
>
> Of course, there are certain or uncertain elements that are
> troublesome, but I like to remain constructive, critical, but more
> positive.
>
> And Happy holidays and New Year to all!!
>
> Izumi
>
> 2014/12/25 3:21 "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu
> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>>:
>
>     FYI and happy holidays!
>
>
>     Lee
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com <mailto:ip at listbox.com>>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
>     *To:* ip
>     *Subject:* [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its
>     Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
>     Consultation Phase | NETmundial
>      
>
>     https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
>
>     Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>     <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>
>     | Modify
>     <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>
>     Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>     <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20141224105832:B3E1D282-8B85-11E4-A91F-F4DD3793BE5A>
>     	<http://www.listbox.com/>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141227/f6f6ac85/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Dec 27 23:18:53 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:48:53 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of
 its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
 Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <549EE9F1.4090909@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>	<0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com> <549EE9F1.4090909@acm.org>
Message-ID: <549F84AD.6010504@itforchange.net>


To my understanding,  for most of those who now support the NMI, the 
case against UN institutions' involvement with IG was the presence of 
Chinas and Irans over there - how can we trust our Internet to such 
authoritarian governments?!  It is a bit strange to see a special 
happiness being expressed when the same actors now join the NMI. What is 
one missing here?

The fact is that China has such a iron grip over its Internet - 
politically and economic-ally, that it is no longer greatly interested 
in more and better (as in more democratic) global governance of the 
Internet. It can do with forums to make deals and adjustments, and that 
is about all. That is China's attraction for the NMI, and here is where 
its interests partially overlap with those of the US, whose whole effort 
is to block any move whatsoever towards globally democratic governance 
of the Internet. What we therefore see is a move that is in the interest 
of all those who already have the most power in terms of the global 
Internet, they have a forum to negotiate their narrow interests.  And 
all those currently dis-empowered lose out and are worse off. (Apart 
from some crumbs throwing business.)

In welcoming a forum where the 'biggies' are given positions, and the 
'ordinary' get ignored is obviously problematic in itself. Worse, it 
pushes countries towards a model of global governance where the way to 
go is seen to be to seek means of making exclusive deals and negotiating 
narrow interests, instead of a pursuance of the global public interest 
(ok, I can hear sniggers, which is precisely the problem), which is what 
a UN kind of global governance system is under-pinned by. It distorts 
the very political thinking and philosophy that needs to form the basis 
of our shared global living. Big loss, really.

parminder


On Saturday 27 December 2014 10:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Good point.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 26-Dec-14 19:16, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> I see at least two names from China as very interesting or 
>> significant: Minister Lu Wei and Jack Ma of Alibaba, both were 
>> central figures at the World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, 
>> China last month. Their participation in this Multistakeholder 
>> venture is a good sign.
>>
>> I also hope our Civil Society colleagues actively engage and advance 
>> our core values.
>>
>> Of course, there are certain or uncertain elements that are 
>> troublesome, but I like to remain constructive, critical, but more 
>> positive.
>>
>> And Happy holidays and New Year to all!!
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>> 2014/12/25 3:21 "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu 
>> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>>:
>>
>>     FYI and happy holidays!
>>
>>
>>     Lee
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     *From:* Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com <mailto:ip at listbox.com>>
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
>>     *To:* ip
>>     *Subject:* [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its
>>     Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
>>     Consultation Phase | NETmundial
>>
>>     https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
>>
>>     Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>     <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>
>>     | Modify
>>     <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>
>>     Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>>     <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20141224105832:B3E1D282-8B85-11E4-A91F-F4DD3793BE5A>
>>     	<http://www.listbox.com/>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141228/96b97004/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Dec  1 13:38:06 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:38:06 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba>	<54762985.2010101@apc.org>	<053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJwbTiCZSt85Qjk00guBLjoSspSdPEnpfu8Me6ozrkc6aDb56Q@mail.gmail.com> <547C3ADE.1000007@cafonso.ca> <547C45BF.8030100@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5A0C228F-62BB-4D2C-A060-15812D370B94@consensus.pro>

+1 and me too on the updating.

On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Might be one of those things that is more suited to a wiki or some other online work that can be updated as necessary.
> 
> And if one does create one of those with the proper format, it can be gathered into an ebook  or an printed object whenever wanted.  
> 
> I like the idea of a an online development that combines new writings with existing writings that is under constant update, and would be willing to contribute to that sort of ongoing dynamic effort if we aable to get one organized.
> 
> avri
> On 01-Dec-14 10:54, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>> The only concern I have on yet another good proposal from Wolf is that a book is static while the IG processes are in a complex, difficult dynamic. I wonder if the book could be a "photograph" of something which would be more or less regularly updated in a corresponding collaborative portal? 
>> 
>> fraternal regards 
>> 
>> --c.a. 
>> 
>> On 12/1/14 10:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society 
>>>     Internet Governance Handbook”. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sala: Let's do this! 
>>> 
>>>     This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present 
>>>     their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what 
>>>     the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters: 
>>> 
>>>     1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) 
>>>     2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) 
>>>     3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition, 
>>>     infrastructure development etc.) 
>>>     4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) 
>>> 
>>>     Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, 
>>>     APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author 
>>>     would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen 
>>>     pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free 
>>>     to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever 
>>>     position on one of the four main issues. 
>>> 
>>>     Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the 
>>>     process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG 
>>>     events ahead of us. 
>>> 
>>>     We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main 
>>>     official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions 
>>>     etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book 
>>>     would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish 
>>>     this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen 
>>>     by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would 
>>>     strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder 
>>>     mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. 
>>> 
>>>     The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six 
>>>     groups) would be the editor. 
>>> 
>>>     Any comment? 
>>> 
>>>     Wolfgang 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     ____________________________________________________________ 
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>>>     To be removed from the list, visit: 
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing 
>>> 
>>>     For all other list information and functions, see: 
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance 
>>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: 
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ 
>>> 
>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141201/4631db72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141201/4631db72/attachment.sig>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Sun Dec 28 03:27:00 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:27:00 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of
 its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
 Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <549F84AD.6010504@itforchange.net>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
	<CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<549EE9F1.4090909@acm.org>
	<549F84AD.6010504@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6iEtN8mjGOVA4_WySMSSzCxN6C3DG7FYShA1hZDy5nLzQ@mail.gmail.com>

For all it's worth I will agree with sentiments, however I think it should
give more reason why Izumi's statement is relevant; aybe a change of
attitude by those seemingly rigid govt can be achieved in this process.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 28 Dec 2014 05:19, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> To my understanding,  for most of those who now support the NMI, the case
> against UN institutions' involvement with IG was the presence of Chinas and
> Irans over there - how can we trust our Internet to such authoritarian
> governments?!  It is a bit strange to see a special happiness being
> expressed when the same actors now join the NMI. What is one missing here?
>
> The fact is that China has such a iron grip over its Internet -
> politically and economic-ally, that it is no longer greatly interested in
> more and better (as in more democratic) global governance of the Internet.
> It can do with forums to make deals and adjustments, and that is about all.
> That is China's attraction for the NMI, and here is where its interests
> partially overlap with  those of the US, whose whole effort is to block any
> move whatsoever towards globally democratic governance of the Internet.
> What we therefore see is a move that is in the interest of all those who
> already have the most power in terms of the global Internet, they have a
> forum to negotiate their narrow interests.  And all those currently
> dis-empowered lose out and are worse off. (Apart from some crumbs throwing
> business.)
>
> In welcoming a forum where the 'biggies' are given positions, and the
> 'ordinary' get ignored is obviously problematic in itself. Worse, it pushes
> countries towards a model of global governance where the way to go is seen
> to be to seek means of making exclusive deals and negotiating narrow
> interests, instead of a pursuance of the global public interest (ok, I can
> hear sniggers, which is precisely the problem), which is what a UN kind of
> global governance system is under-pinned by. It distorts the very political
> thinking and philosophy that needs to form the basis of our shared global
> living. Big loss, really.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 27 December 2014 10:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> Good point.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 26-Dec-14 19:16, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> I see at least two names from China as very interesting or significant:
> Minister Lu Wei and Jack Ma of Alibaba, both were central figures at the
> World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, China last month. Their
> participation in this Multistakeholder venture is a good sign.
>
> I also hope our Civil Society colleagues actively engage and advance our
> core values.
>
> Of course, there are certain or uncertain elements that are troublesome,
> but I like to remain constructive, critical, but more positive.
>
> And Happy holidays and New Year to all!!
>
> Izumi
>  2014/12/25 3:21 "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
>
>>  FYI and happy holidays!
>>
>>
>>  Lee
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
>> *To:* ip
>> *Subject:* [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its
>> Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation
>> Phase | NETmundial
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
>>   Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07> |
>> Modify
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>
>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20141224105832:B3E1D282-8B85-11E4-A91F-F4DD3793BE5A>
>> <http://www.listbox.com/>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141228/ee4017db/attachment.htm>

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Dec 28 09:17:01 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:47:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of
 its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
 Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <549F84AD.6010504@itforchange.net>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
	<CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<549EE9F1.4090909@acm.org>
	<549F84AD.6010504@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0FOYo9QcD_xY76HgBYnYSaHiTiiL+aRdYqAkgsmymqH=A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder,


On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 9:48 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
> To my understanding,  for most of those who now support the NMI, the case
> against UN institutions' involvement with IG was the presence of Chinas and
> Irans over there
>

When did any one say that [States such as } China or Iran ​should not be
involved in UN or have a presence in IG?
​


> - how can we trust our Internet to such authoritarian governments?!  It is
> a bit strange to see a special happiness being expressed when the same
> actors now join the NMI. What is one missing here?
>

​NETmundial Initiative is open for global participation, brings
stakeholders from every country to the table, no exceptions. Actually there
is nothing "missing" here.


>
> The fact is that China has such a iron grip over its Internet -
> politically and economic-ally, that it is no longer greatly interested in
> more and better (as in more democratic) global governance of the Internet.
> It can do with forums to make deals and adjustments, and that is about all.
> That is China's attraction for the NMI, and here is where its interests
> partially overlap with  those of the US, whose whole effort is to block any
> move whatsoever towards
> ​g​
> ​
> ​
> ​
> lobally democratic governance of the Internet. What we therefore see is a
> move that is in the interest of all those who already have the most power
> in terms of the global Internet, they have a forum to negotiate their
> narrow interests.  And all those currently dis-empowered lose out and are
> worse off. (Apart from some crumbs throwing business.)
>
> In welcoming a forum where the 'biggies' are given positions, and the
> 'ordinary' get ignored is obviously problematic in itself.
>

​This is an inaugural coordination council. If my assumption is right, it
might take shape further.
​


> Worse, it pushes countries towards a model of global governance where the
> way to go is seen to be to seek means of making exclusive deals and
> negotiating narrow interests, instead of a pursuance of the global public
> interest
>

​That is not fair as a comment. Even before an initiative is given shape,
you are starting with a harsh assumption about how it will work. How about
starting with an assumption that the NETmundial Initiative is ALL about
Global Public Interest?​



> (ok, I can hear sniggers, which is precisely the problem), which is what a
> UN kind of global governance system is under-pinned by. It distorts the
> very political thinking and philosophy that needs to form the basis of our
> shared global living. Big loss, really.
>

​It is a great step forward. Whoever initiated NETmundial merits an
applause instead of all this unfair criticism.

Sivasubramanian M​






>
> parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 27 December 2014 10:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> Good point.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 26-Dec-14 19:16, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> I see at least two names from China as very interesting or significant:
> Minister Lu Wei and Jack Ma of Alibaba, both were central figures at the
> World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, China last month. Their
> participation in this Multistakeholder venture is a good sign.
>
> I also hope our Civil Society colleagues actively engage and advance our
> core values.
>
> Of course, there are certain or uncertain elements that are troublesome,
> but I like to remain constructive, critical, but more positive.
>
> And Happy holidays and New Year to all!!
>
> Izumi
>  2014/12/25 3:21 "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
>
>>  FYI and happy holidays!
>>
>>
>>  Lee
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
>> *To:* ip
>> *Subject:* [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its
>> Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation
>> Phase | NETmundial
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
>>   Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07> |
>> Modify
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>
>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20141224105832:B3E1D282-8B85-11E4-A91F-F4DD3793BE5A>
>> <http://www.listbox.com/>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141228/8bb2a30b/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Sun Dec 28 18:07:16 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 18:07:16 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of
 its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
 Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <549F84AD.6010504@itforchange.net>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>	<0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com> <549EE9F1.4090909@acm.org> <549F84AD.6010504@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54A08D24.6010300@acm.org>


On 27-Dec-14 23:18, parminder wrote:
>
> To my understanding,  for most of those who now support the NMI, the
> case against UN institutions' involvement with IG was the presence of
> Chinas and Irans over there - how can we trust our Internet to such
> authoritarian governments?!  It is a bit strange to see a special
> happiness being expressed when the same actors now join the NMI. What
> is one missing here?

Far be it for me to know what others might be missing.

But I do believe the difference is between having them and other
governments dominate a process, sometimes to the exclusion of all
others, and the beginning of their particpation in new multistakeholder
experiments.

avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141228/175fc1c7/attachment.htm>

From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Dec 29 09:46:13 2014
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:46:13 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] Top IG issue/personality/event in 2014 - 2-minute survey
Message-ID: <CALCecM8xeWGeA68pkfZWQO_MbYKgL2u6nw83AijPHfqx4N2m8A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear colleagues,

We are coming to the end of a very busy 2014 and the beginning of 2015,
which promises to be even more eventful. At this time of reflection, we
have prepared a visual 2014 Timeline of Internet Governance.
<http://giplatform.org/>

To add your own input to the analyses of the year, please take a moment to
vote <https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IG2014review> on the most important
Internet governance event, issue, and personality of 2014. Watch for the
results of the survey on the GIP Platform <http://www.giplatform.org/events>
.

We wish you a smooth passage to the New Year and peace and prosperity in
2015.

Warm wishes from a freezing cold Wisconsin, USA,
Ginger
Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
-----

*Upcoming online courses: *Capacity Development, Humanitarian Diplomacy,
Introduction to Internet Governance, Public Diplomacy, Diplomatic Theory
and Practice. http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
* <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141229/9cbb0ac5/attachment.htm>

From robin at ipjustice.org  Tue Dec 30 14:44:41 2014
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:44:41 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Statement on GAC Sub-Group's Proposal on
 "Geographic Names" in Top Level Domain Names
Message-ID: <31F3E8F6-0AAC-43E2-B3A3-6FB360B45E7B@ipjustice.org>

Hello All,

If any of BestBit's member organizations would like to sign-on to this civil society statement regarding a GAC sub-group's proposal to give governments veto power on new top level domain names that use "geographic names" please let me know asap.  The stmt has also just been opened up for individuals to sign-on to, so you can also sign-on as an individual (not just organizations) if you would like to.

The GAC sub-group's proposal on "geographic names" and other comments submitted on this proposal are available here:
 https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee

The GAC's deadline for comments is 31 December, so please let me know by in the next day if you would like to sign-on to this joint civil society statement; it is currently open for sign-on by other civil society organizations until 30 December EOB.  Or send in your own comment on the proposal if you are so inclined (at the link above) by 31 December.  Holiday deadlines are tough, I know!  

I think this is a very important policy issue for protecting freedom of expression and the positive development of the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance.

Thanks very much!

All best,
Robin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/efbd884d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2014_December_Comments_GAC-Geo-Names_FINAL_1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/efbd884d/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/efbd884d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/efbd884d/attachment.sig>

From robin at ipjustice.org  Tue Dec 30 15:23:28 2014
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 12:23:28 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Statement on ICANN GAC Sub-Group's
 Proposal on "Geographic Names" in Top Level Domain Names
Message-ID: <F587CFAE-F1F4-40DB-924E-17CC696C8C4E@ipjustice.org>

Hello All,

If any other civil society members would like to sign-on to this civil society statement regarding an ICANN GAC sub-group's proposal to give governments veto power on new top level domain names that use "geographic names" please let me know asap.  The stmt has also just been opened up for individuals to sign-on to, so you can also sign-on as an individual (not just organizations) if you would like to.

The GAC sub-group's proposal on "geographic names" and other comments submitted on this proposal are available here:
 https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee

The GAC's deadline for comments is 31 December, so please let me know by in the next day if you would like to sign-on to this joint civil society statement; it is currently open for sign-on by other civil society members until 30 December EOB.  Or send in your own comment on the proposal if you are so inclined (at the link above) by 31 December.  Holiday deadlines are tough, I know!  

I think this is a very important policy issue for protecting freedom of expression and the positive development of the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance.

Thanks very much!

All best,
Robin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/4fc7fddc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2014_December_Comments_GAC-Geo-Names_FINAL_1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/4fc7fddc/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/4fc7fddc/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/4fc7fddc/attachment.sig>

From arbih2002us at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 30 15:48:39 2014
From: arbih2002us at yahoo.com (arbih2002us at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:48:39 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of
 its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community
 Consultation Phase | NETmundial
Message-ID: <9u24t17nu9cv59qcungn3n01.1419972519885@email.android.com>

+1 Seun. 
I agree with Izumi. 
Appetite can improve while on the table. 
Lorin


Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> 
Date: 28/12/2014  09:27  (GMT+01:00) 
To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 
Cc: "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation Phase | NETmundial 
 
For all it's worth I will agree with sentiments, however I think it should give more reason why Izumi's statement is relevant; aybe a change of attitude by those seemingly rigid govt can be achieved in this process.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 28 Dec 2014 05:19, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

To my understanding,  for most of those who now support the NMI, the case against UN institutions' involvement with IG was the presence of Chinas and Irans over there - how can we trust our Internet to such authoritarian governments?!  It is a bit strange to see a special happiness being expressed when the same actors now join the NMI. What is one missing here?

The fact is that China has such a iron grip over its Internet - politically and economic-ally, that it is no longer greatly interested in more and better (as in more democratic) global governance of the Internet. It can do with forums to make deals and adjustments, and that is about all. That is China's attraction for the NMI, and here is where its interests partially overlap with  those of the US, whose whole effort is to block any move whatsoever towards globally democratic governance of the Internet. What we therefore see is a move that is in the interest of all those who already have the most power in terms of the global Internet, they have a forum to negotiate their narrow interests.  And all those currently dis-empowered lose out and are worse off. (Apart from some crumbs throwing business.)

In welcoming a forum where the 'biggies' are given positions, and the 'ordinary' get ignored is obviously problematic in itself. Worse, it pushes countries towards a model of global governance where the way to go is seen to be to seek means of making exclusive deals and negotiating narrow interests, instead of a pursuance of the global public interest (ok, I can hear sniggers, which is precisely the problem), which is what a UN kind of global governance system is under-pinned by. It distorts the very political thinking and philosophy that needs to form the basis of our shared global living. Big loss, really. 

parminder 


On Saturday 27 December 2014 10:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

Good point.

avri


On 26-Dec-14 19:16, Izumi AIZU wrote:
I see at least two names from China as very interesting or significant: Minister Lu Wei and Jack Ma of Alibaba, both were central figures at the World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, China last month. Their participation in this Multistakeholder venture is a good sign.

I also hope our Civil Society colleagues actively engage and advance our core values.

Of course, there are certain or uncertain elements that are troublesome, but I like to remain constructive, critical, but more positive.

And Happy holidays and New Year to all!!

Izumi
2014/12/25 3:21 "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
FYI and happy holidays!


Lee
From: Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation Phase | NETmundial
 
https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and

Archives   | Modify Your                               Subscription | Unsubscribe Now	
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as 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


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/b05b58a2/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Tue Dec 30 17:39:54 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 23:39:54 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <54951421.5070105@itforchange.net>
References: <CAK-FJAc4M2X4Sj8pXzKgouCHjfPjDbast+UDToADZKeCcE5oEA@mail.gmail.com> <54928068.2090108@itforchange.net> <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DB49BE6@DAGN16a-e6.exg6.exghost.com> <54951421.5070105@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <3ACEEB79-C2E3-45A7-B9F2-FE8A2C5E2601@consensus.pro>

Dear all,

For those of you interested in the subject of the TISA agreement and its Internet provisions, you may find this from me of interest:

Are the TISA Trade Talks a Threat to Net Neutrality, Data Protection, or Privacy?



On 20 Dec 2014, at 07:16, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> Thanks Brucu, I hadnt seen this news.
> 
> It is worrying if India was to join in, although the quoted official seems to suggest that India is considering both options, joining in to TISA, or go to WTO's full membership. Although I have seen in the new Indian government a greater predilection to play the 'big boys club' game and I can see why TISA holds such an attraction. 
> 
> This new development even more clearly shows why a full multilateral approach is better for larger global public interest than a closed plurilateral one. Secondly, especially for people here involved in IG, it is better to have a committed multilateral venue for consideration of Internet as, and I am repeating, a new unique convergent global infrastructure for communication, information and social organising, and also treating data within this framework, rather than trade negotiations being allowed to determine the architecture of the Internet, and the nature of what data means to us.
> 
> I cant resist mentioning here how India's proposal to have a global multilateral body, with an extra-ordinary multistakeholder participation, to treat Internet in, well, an Internet-centric way, was rebuffed by much of the civil society here. Now if India moves away both from multilateral to plurilateral approaches, and from an Internet-centric to trade-centric approaches, that particular fact should take a good part of the blame. Treating Internet first in an Internet-centric way of course does not mean that it would then not figure in trade talks and treaties. However, is possible to frame some essential principles and norms in the 'Internet space' which then frame and bind what happens in trade talks. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> On Saturday 20 December 2014 12:46 AM, Burcu Kilic wrote:
>>  
>> Thank you Parminder.  I couldn’t have said it better myself.
>> Just saw this today, it might be of interest to you.
>> Cheers,
>> Burcu
>>  
>> INDIA: Government may reverse opposition to trade in services agreement
>> http://www.livemint.com/Politics/rmX1qpA7UPNhwXZmCBb1tI/Government-may-reverse-opposition-to-trade-in-services-agree.html
>>  
>> Government is exploring the possibility of joining TISA or making a new proposal in services in the Doha round of talks
>>  
>> TISA is a trade pact currently being negotiated by 23 members of WTO, including the US.
>>  
>> New Delhi: I n order to further exploit its inherent advantages in the services sector, India is contemplating reversing its opposition to the plurilateral trade in services agreement (TISA) under the World Trade Organization (WTO), a commerce ministry official said.
>> India is exploring the possibility of joining TISA or making a fresh proposal in services in the Doha Round of WTO negotiations, the official said, requesting anonymity.
>>  
>> TISA is a trade agreement currently being negotiated by 23 members of WTO, including the US and the European Union. Together, these countries account for 70% of world trade in services.
>>  
>> Launched in April 2013, TISA aims at opening up markets and improving rules in areas such as licensing, financial services, telecoms, e-commerce, maritime transport, and professionals moving abroad temporarily to provide services.
>>  
>> “TISA give you an opportunity to access markets in areas where you have strength. Is it not good for us to really explore and see how the elements that have come into TISA on account of technology thresholds, and on account of broader commitments coming out of TISA being a much better agreement than General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)? Is it not worthwhile for us to explore if TISA could be a good opportunity for us?” the commerce ministry official asked.
>>  
>> The official said services should also be an inherent part of the Make in India programme launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “If we don’t address issues, which require regulatory reforms in many of these services areas, whether they are logistics, professional services, tourism, healthcare, India has a huge potential out there and we should take benefit out of these through reforms,” he added.
>>  
>> India should not make a negative connotation about TISA and should keep its option open to join it, said T.S. Vishwanath, principal adviser with APJ-SLG Law Offices. “We should not be left napping when such an important agreement is being negotiated. But if we want to join we should join it when negotiations are on so that we can secure our interests,” he said. “There is no point joining TISA after negotiations are over.”
>>  
>> Services contributed 57% to India’s economy in 2013-14. India’s annual export of services is pegged at $151.47 billion in 2013-14, while the export of merchandise stands at $312.5 billion during the same year.
>>  
>> To boost its services exports, which is currently dominated by information technology (IT) and IT-enabled services (ITeS), India has been organizing services conclaves for the past two years. The focus of these conclaves has been to explore new opportunities and identify the challenges in services exports, and create a road map for its sustained and accelerated growth so that the gap between merchandise and services exports narrow.
>>  
>> The official said the whole problem in services is that technology is moving so fast that laws and legislative reforms are not catching up. “There is no reason why technology improvements and legislative reforms can’t keep pace. But if we can boast of being IT industry leaders, then there is no reason why our regulatory processes and technology can’t keep pace. We should find ways of doing that,” he added.
>>  
>> The other option that India has is to present a fresh proposal to the WTO services-related negotiating bodies.
>> “We submitted a revised offer in 2005 and did a signalling in 2008, why can’t we do signalling now? So much of technology has come in, so much of legal reform has taken place, why can’t now at this stage we go to WTO and say that we are now prepared to offer another set of revised offers,” the official added.
>>  
>> He said this would help in two ways. “One that will hit at the basis of TISA and two, it will get all developing countries together. Because ultimately, to take example of Africa, it may not be a great market for services today, but 10 years down the lane it will be. So we can work towards building new architecture which has potential to evolve in next 10-15 years,” he added.
>>  
>> In services, India has not really gone the way a leading services providing country should have, the official said. “There is a reason for us to work towards seeking domestic regulatory reforms secondly, marry technology with evolution of laws and take a little bold steps to see how you can re-energize the multilateral trading system once again,” he added.
>>  
>> India has little option left but to join TISA as the normal Doha track seems not to be moving fast enough, said Biswajit Dhar, professor of economics in Jawaharlal Nehru University. “But unless we clearly mark out our offensive interests, it will be disastrous if we get into such negotiations and start playing defensive,” he said.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 2:21 AM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] TRADE impacts on Net Neutrality
>>  
>> 
>> This below is a very important development, and the analysis by Prof Kelsey and Dr Kilic is really really good. 
>> 
>> The upshot in my view is; the global Internet would finally be governed, has to be governed, like any other important social system. The real question that we face, especially in the context of these new revelations, is; whether
>> 
>> (1) the Internet should be governed as a 'trade system', and among a few willing countries, which represent the most powerful countries plus those who are willing to partake of the fruits of cooptation, or 
>> 
>> 
>> (2)  it should be governed as a unique new global infrastructure of communication, information, and social organizing (and thus of many a social system, including trade) in venues that are open to all countries of the world, more powerful or less, big or small. 
>> 
>> (Included in the above is the question whether the key value flow on the Internet, data, is to be considered in a framework of its multiferous enmeshment with many sectors of our society, or just as a commodity for trade, with some minor 'exceptions' admitted here and there.) 
>> 
>> One would think that for a civil society group the above is a simple choice to make. But unfortunately, most civil society actors in the IG space have focussed on narrow specific issues missing this larger framework, and thus missing the wood for the tree. Willy nilly, in my view, it amounts to complicity with option 1 above .
>> 
>> Kelsey and Kilc's analysis begins with a very pertinent listing of US' objectives. While all three listed objectives are instructive, I especially quote no 3
>> 
>> "prevent or restrict government regulation that impedes the activities and profits of the major global services industries, and guarantees unrestricted cross-border data flows, which impacts on consumer protections, privacy laws, regulatory constraints and competition policy."
>> 
>> How effective the US strategy has been on this count is obvious... It has kept the IG world embroiled in the multistakehoder versus multilateral debate as it goes ahead building the global architecture of IG and of the Internet through its secret agreements like the TISA. When the pressure becomes too much, like post Snowden, it throws a NTIA transition ball for kids to play with, which is both the not most important global IG issues, and even in its best possible outcome does not really change much. But quite good to divert people' thinking and energy for a year or two. And if one asks, but what about non-tech issues, it comes up with the WEF based NetMundial Initiative, and gets enthusiastic civil society backers - though anyone will ask the question, how the US push to prevent public interest governance of the Internet for the sake of protecting its big business interests (see the quote above) is addressed by new forums where those very big business interests will now direct participate in public policy development. But then...
>> 
>> parminder  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday 17 December 2014 09:17 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> press release from PC (our dear Burcu) and also a briefing distributed today by other groups going deeper on the issues
>>  
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Melinda St. Louis <mstlouis at citizen.org>
>> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 AM
>> Subject: [tpp-allies] PC Press Release: Obama "trade" text leak: net neutrality, data privacy implicated
>> To: tpp-allies <tpp-allies at listserver.citizen.org>
>> 
>>  
>> http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-net-neutrality-leak.pdf
>>  
>> For Immediate Release:
>> Contact:
>> Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741, abradbery at citizen.org
>> Dec. 17, 2014
>>  
>> Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders at citizen.org
>>  
>> Leak of Obama Administration Trade Pact Proposal Reveals Negotiations Affecting Net Neutrality, Limits on Data Privacy Protections
>> 
>> U.S. Internet Governance Policy Should not be Designed in Closed-Door, Industry-Influenced Negotiations of U.S. Trade in Services Agreement
>>  
>> WASHINGTON, D.C. – While a domestic debate about net neutrality rages and public demands for better data privacy protections grow, a U.S. trade pact proposal leaked today reveals that issues related to both policies are being negotiated in closed-door trade talks to which corporate trade advisors have special access, said Public Citizen.
>>  
>> The leaked text is the U.S. proposal for language relating to e-commerce and Internet issues in a proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which is now being negotiated between a 50-country subset of  World Trade Organization members. The pact would require signatory countries to ensure conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the TISA; failure to do so could subject a country to trade sanctions. Negotiators are pushing to complete and implement the pact next year.
>>  
>> “This leak reveals a dangerous trend where policies unrelated to trade are being diplomatically legislated through closed-door international ‘trade’ negotiations to which industry interests have privileged access while the public and policy experts promoting consumer interests are shut out,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Given the raging domestic debate over net neutrality, the growing demands for more data privacy and the constantly changing technology, a pact negotiated in secret that is not subject to changes absent consensus of all signatories seems like a very bad place to be setting U.S. Internet governance policies.”
>>  
>> Added Burcu Kilic, a lawyer with Public Citizen, “The Internet belongs to its users. Anyone who cares about an open and free Internet should be concerned that U.S. trade negotiators are seeking to lock in international rules about how the Internet functions, and are doing so in a closed-door process that is not subject to the input of  Internet users. Negotiating rules internationally, behind closed doors, while the domestic discussion is ongoing not only makes an end-run around the domestic process, but excludes the perspectives and expertise needed to make good policy.”
>>  
>> With respect to privacy protections, the leaked text reveals that the U.S. negotiators are pushing for new corporate rights for unrestricted cross-border data flows and prohibitions on requirements to hold and process data locally, thus removing governments’ ability to ensure that private and sensitive personal data is stored and processed only in jurisdictions that ensure privacy.
>>  
>> Such measures are considered critical to ensuring that medical, financial and other data provided protection by U.S. law are not made public when sent offshore for processing and storage, with no legal recourse for affected individuals. Numerous U.S. organizations are pushing for improvements in such policies, which are considerably stronger in other countries. If the proposed TISA terms on free data movement were to become binding on the United States, such needed progress would be foreclosed.
>>  
>> For a more detailed analysis of the leaked text and its implications for net neutrality and data privacy, please see this memo co-written by Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland School of Law, and Kilic of Public Citizen.
>>  
>> ###
>>  
>> Symone D. Sanders
>> Communications Officer | Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
>> 215 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003
>> Office: 202.454.5108 | Cell: 402-671-8118
>> Email:  ssanders at citizen.org
>> Website: www.tradewatch.org
>> Twitter: @PCGTW, @ExposeTPP
>>  
>> ---
>> 
>> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com.
>> 
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=45853719
>> 
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>> 
>> or send a blank email to leave-45853719-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> --
>> -- 
>> Carolina Rossini 
>> Vice President, International Policy
>> Public Knowledge
>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>> + 1 6176979389 | 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/6c14f2a4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141230/6c14f2a4/attachment.sig>

From avri at acm.org  Mon Dec  1 17:13:56 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:13:56 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
In-Reply-To: <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net>
References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> <547C344A.9070808@acm.org> <547C5376.7070101@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <547CE824.1040908@acm.org>


On 01-Dec-14 12:39, parminder wrote:
> If we  indeed generally are into being good and accommodative, perhaps
> we could be as giving and gracious with regard to the UN and its
> institutions as well, whether the ITU or a new possible space for
> Internet governance and policy. But we do not offer them similar
> considerations, do we.

Yes, many of us do.

We participate in the ITU (I am sure you saw several of us at the PP
where we were participatory and not at all disruptive), the IGF, the HRC
and work with various other agencies of both the UN and the UN system. 
I personally worked with some of the ITU-T architecture and protocol
study groups during the last century before WSIS was even a concept. 
Currently many of us are knocking on the ITU Council Working Group
asking to be let in so we can have a seat at their table.  That is
hardly vilification.

Yes, I object to the idea of the UN or ITU gaining supremacy over the
Internet but I and many others have long supported them as equal footing
participants in IG functions. 

And yes, I would equally object to NMI or WEF gaining supremacy in IG as
well.  I do not have the impression that they are trying to do this. 
And if they try, we better be there to nip it in the bud. But I support
them being equal footing participants in IG in the same way I support
the  UN and UN system organizations.

avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141201/c8d08eb8/attachment.htm>